Mnin  Lrt>. 

HISTORft 


THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 


THE  MACMILLAN  COMPANY 

NEW  YORK  •    BOSTON   •    CHICAGO 
DALLAS   •    ATLANTA   •    SAN  FRANCISCO 

MACMILLAN  &  CO.,  LIMITED 

LONDON   •    BOMBAY   •    CALCUTTA 
MELBOURNE 

THE  MACMILLAN  CO.  OF  CANADA,  LTD. 

TORONTO 


THE    REFORMATION 
IN    GERMANY 


BY 

HENRY  C.  VEDDER 

tl 

PROFESSOR   OF  CHURCH  HISTORY  IN  CROZER 
THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY 


gorfe 
THE   MACMILLAN   COMPANY 

1914 


V* 


COPYRIGHT,  1014 
By  THE  MACMILLAN  COMPANY 


Set  up  and  electrotyped.    Published  January,  1914 


TO 

WALTER  RAUSCHENBUSCH 

PROPHET    OF   THE    NEW    REFORMATION 

THIS    STORY    OF 
AN    OLDER    STRUGGLE    FOR    LIBERTY 

IS    INSCRIBED 
WITH   ALL    ESTEEM   AND   AFFECTION 


CONTENTS 

PAGE 

Germany  in  the  Sixteenth  Century xi 

PART  I.    FROM  THE  BEGINNING  OF  THE  REFORMA- 
TION TO  THE  EDICT  OF  WORMS,  1517-1521 

CHAPTER 

I.  The  Making  of  Martin  Luther 3 

II.  The  Wolf  in  the  Sheepfold       21 

III.  In  Conflict  with  the  Pope        53 

IV.  The  Leipzig  Disputation 81 

V.  The  Bull  of  Excommunication 109 

VI.  The  Diet  of  Worms 137 

PART  II.    FROM  THE  EDICT  OF  WORMS  TO  THE  PROTEST  AT 
SPEYER,  1521-1529 

I.  The  New  Luther 167 

II.  A  New  Pope  and  an  Old  Grievance 194 

III.  Exeunt  Humanists 215 

IV.  Reform  or  Revolution?        235 

V.  The  First  Diet  of  Speyer  and  the  New  Church  Order      .    .    .257 

VI.  The  Second  Diet  of  Speyer  and  the  Protest       281 

PART  III.    FROM  THE  PROTEST  TO  THE  PEACE  OF  AUGS- 
BURG, 1529-1555 

I.  The  Colloquy  at  Marburg  and  the  Division  of  the  Reformers  .  301 
II.  The  Augsburg  Diet  and  the  Confession 317 

III.  The  Schmalkald  War 343 

IV.  The  Peace  of  Augsburg       371 

vii 


viii  CONTENTS 

APPENDIXES 

PAGE 

I.  Luther's  Theses 397 

II.  Tetzel's  Theses  on  Indulgences 402 

III.  Luther's  Appeal  to  a  General  Council       413 

IV.  The  Decree  of  Worms 418 

V.  Against  the  Murdering  and  Robbing  Bands  of  the  Peasants     .  427 

VI.  The  Protest  at  Speyer 431 

VII.  The  Peace  of  Augsburg       440 


FOREWORD 

WITHIN  a  generation  a  new  way  of  looking  at  all  history  has  become 
common  among  students  of  the  past,  a  recognition  of  the  fundamental 
importance  of  the  economic  basis  of  society,  and  the  influence  of  econprnic 
changes  on  all  human  institutions^,  and  movements.  The  economic 
interpretation  of  history  has  not  yet  been  applied  to  the  period  of  the 
Reformation,  and  that  fact  is  the  chief  justification  of  this  attempt  to 
retell  a  story  that  has  been  so  often  told,  yet  told  inadequately.  That 
the  great  religious  struggle  of  the  sixteenth  century  was  only  a  phase  of 
the  social  revolution  then  going  on  in  Europe  and  effecting  a  transforma- 
tion of  all  its  institutions,  that  momentous  economic  changes  were  the 
underlying  cause  of  political  and  religious  movements,  are  ideas  for  which 
the  reader  will  look  in  vain  in  books  on  the  Reformation  accessible  to  him. 
But  these  ideas  are  now  accepted  by  most  historical  students,  and  in  the 
light  of  them  all  the  history  of  the  past  is  undergoing  a  reinterpretation. 
The  external  events  of  the  Reformation  have  been  told  before  with 
substantial  accuracy;  what  is  now  needed  is  illumination  of  the  facts  by 
the  light  of  this  new  knowledge. 

By  itself  this  would  be  a  sufficient  justification  for  the  writing  of  a  new 
book  on  this  old  subject.  But  there  are  other  reasons.  For  more  than  a 
generation,  Europe  has  been  swept  with  lighted  candle  to  find  the  smallest 
fragment  of  document,  or  one  overlooked  fact,  that  could  shed  light  on 
the  Reformation  period.  The  result  has  been  the  accumulation  of  an 
enormous  mass  of  material,  much  of  it  trivial  and  jejune — mountains  of 
chaff,  to  speak  plainly,  with  here  and  there  a  kernel  of  precious  wheat. 
Little,  relatively,  has  been  done  in  the  way  of  comparing,  sifting,  unifying 
this  mass  of  useful  and  useless  information.  Monographs  have  multiplied, 
it  is  true,  until  every  character  of  the  age,  however  little  noteworthy,  has 
his  biography;  and  every  event,  however  obscure,  has  its  separate  doc- 
umented story.  Has  not  the  time  come  for  the  telling  of  the  larger  story 
once  more,  in  the  light  of  this  newly  discovered  body  of  fact? 

The  scientific  method  of  studying  history,  with  its  emphasis  on  original 
research,  its  multiplication  of  documents,  its  flood  of  monographs  on 
fields  more  and  more  restricted,  tends  to  issue  in  the  mean  and  sordid 
collection  of  mere  fact,  and  to  make  the  writing  of  history,  as  a  branch  of 
pure  literature,  a  lost  art.  The  reader  finds  himself,  in  these  days,  con- 
demned to  a  dreary  pilgrimage  through  a  valley  of  dry  bones.  This  book 

ix 


x  FOREWORD 

frankly  confesses  to  be  inspired  by  the  older  idea  of  history,  now  unfashion- 
able, of  furnishing  the  reader  a  logical  clew  to  guide  him  through  the 
labyrinth  of  accumulated  fact,  hi  which  he  might  otherwise  wander 
interminably.  The  great  masters  of  historical  writing  in  the  past 
never  dreamed  that  fact  became  less  trustworthy  by  being  inter- 
estingly told.  Founding  his  work  on  painstaking  study  of  the  sources, 
the  author  has  yet  tried  to  make  a  readable  narrative,  worth  while 
for  its  own  sake.  Relying  chiefly  on  the  contemporary  documents, 
he  has  neglected  nothing  hi  the  more  recent  literature  that  prom- 
ised the  least  assistance  toward  a  better  understanding  of  the  facts 
or  their  more  accurate  determination.  To  boast  that  one  has  mas- 
tered this  vast  literature  of  detail  would  probably  be  deemed  immodest, 
but  one  may  fairly  profess  that  he  has  devoted  many  studious  years  to 
this  object,  and  is  reasonably  confident  that  he  has  missed  little  of 
substantial  value.  Faithful  study  has  been  given  to  the  original  sources, 
and  every  statement  likely  to  be  controverted,  or  involving  important 
fact,  has  been  supported  by  reference  to  authority,  and  the  location  of 
important  quotations  has  been  scrupulously  indicated.  In  cases  where 
the  importance  of  the  matter  seemed  to  require  such  treatment,  or  where 
the  author's  translation  or  interpretation  might  be  challenged,  the  exact 
words  of  the  original  have  been  given  in  the  note. 

Special  thanks  are  due,  for  the  loan  of  valuable  books,  to  Dr.  Charles 
Ripley  Gillett,  former  librarian  of  Union  Theological  Seminary,  and  Pro- 
fessor Walter  Robert  Betteridge,  librarian  of  Rochester  Theological 
Seminary. 


ABBREVIATIONS 

LDS,  Luther's  German  Writings,  Erlangen  edition,  67  vols. 

LOL,  Opera  Latino,  varii  argumenti,  supplement  to  Erlangen  edition  of 

Luther's  Latin  works,  in  7  vols. 
Walch,  the  St.  Louis  reprint  of  tlje  well-known  Halle  edition.    In  the 

few  references  to  the  Halle  edition,  it  is  distinctly  cited. 
De  Wette,  Luther's  Letters,  edited  by  De  Wette  and  Seidemann,  Berlin, 

7  vols. 
CR,  Corpus  Reformatorum,  the  standard  edition  of  Melanchthon's  works, 

edited  by  Bretschneider  and  Bindsell,  28  vols. 


ANF,  The  Ante-Nicene  Fathers,  9  vols.,  New  York,  1886-1890. 
Gochlaeus,  Commentaria  de  actis  et  scriptis  M.  Lutheri,  Paris,  1565. 
Currie,  Letters  of  Martin  Luther,  translated  by  Margaret  A.  Currie, 

New  York,  1908. 
Gieseler,  History  of  the  Christian  Church,  translated  by  Henry  B.  Smith, 

New  York,  1876,  5  vols. 
Janssen,  History  of  the  German  People  at  the  Close  of  the  Middle  Ages, 

English  translation,  St.  Louis  (no  date),  12  vols. 
Jacobs,  Martin  Luther,  "Heroes  of  the  Reformation"  series,  New  York, 

1898.    Book  of  Concord  (referred  to  as  "Concord"),  Philadelphia, 

1893,  2  vols. 
Kidd,  Documents  illustrative  of  the  Continental  Reformation,  Oxford, 

1911. 
Kostlin,  Martin  Luther,  Sein  Leben  und  seine  Schriften,  fifth  ed.,  by  Kaw- 

erau.     Berlin,   1903,  2  vols.  "Theology"  appended  to  the  name 

indicates  "Luther's  Theology,"  English  translation  by  Hay,  Phil- 
adelphia, 1879,  2  vols. 
Loscher,    Vollstandige    Reformations-Acta    und    Documenta,    Leipzig, 

1720,  3  vols. 
Mansi,  Sacrorum  Conciliorum  nova  et  amplissima  collectio,  Florence  and 

Venice,  1759;  vols.  I-XXXI;  supplement,  Paris,  vols.  XXXI-XLIII. 
Mag.  Bull.,  Magnum  Bullarium  Romanum,  ed.  Cherubino,  Luxemburg, 

1742,  10  vols.  Continuatio,  Rome,  1855,  19  vols. 
Michelet,  The  Life  of  Luther  written  by  himself;  Hazlitt's  translation  in 

the  Bohn  Library. 

xi 


xii  ABBREVIATIONS 

Ranke,  History  of  the  Popes,  the  well-known  Bohn  edition  in  3  vols. 
Raynaldus,  Continuation  of   the   great   Roman  Catholic  history,  the 

Annales  of  Baronius,  years  1333-1565,  Lucae,  1750. 
Sarpi,  History  of  the  Council  of  Trent;  English  translation  under  name 

of  Polano,  London,  1676. 
Seckendorf,    Commentarius  historicus  et  apologeticus   de  Lutheranismo, 

Leipzig,  1694. 
Schaff,  History  of  the  Christian  Church,  New  York,  1883,  7  vols.    Creeds 

of  Christendom,  New  York,  1877,  3  vols. 
Sleidan,  De  statu  religionis  et  reipuhlicce  Carlo  V.  Ccesare  commentarii, 

references  conformed  to  English  translation  by  Bohun,  London,  1676. 
Spalatin,  Annales  Reformationis,  Leipzig,  1718. 
Smith,  The  Life  and  Letters  of  Martin  Luther,  by  Preserved  Smith, 

Boston,  1912. 

Wace  and  Bucheim,  First  Principles  of  the  Reformation,  or,  the  Ninety- 
five  Theses  and  the  three  Primary  Works  of  Dr.  Martin  Luther, 

London,  1883. 
ZKG,  Zeitschrift  fur  Kirchengeschichte. 


INTRODUCTION 
GERMANY  IN  THE  SIXTEENTH  CENTURY 

LUTHER  taught  nothing  new.  His  doctrine  was  not  new  even  in  Ger- 
many. A  generation  earlier  John  of  Wesel  had  attacked  indulgences,  and 
had  taught  justification  by  faith  in  Luther's  own  university,  with  equal 
boldness  and  superior  learning.  Wiclif  in  England,  Hus  in  Bohemia,  and 
Savonarola  in  Italy  had  fully  realized  the  corruptions  of  the  Roman 
Church,  and  denounced  them  with  a  vigor  that  even  Luther  never  ex- 
ceeded. The  characteristic  doctrines  of  the  German  Reformation  had 
been  developed  and  proclaimed  long  before  the  Saxon  reformer  opened 
his  eyes  to  the  light  of  day,  in  terms  almost  identical,  and  quite  identical 
in  substance,  with  those  found  in  his  writings.  It  becomes,  therefore,  an 
interesting  historical  question,  Why  did  Luther  succeed  in  leading  a 
Reformation  while  his  predecessors  failed?  Some  would  answer,  some 
have  answered,  by  magnifying  Luther's  greatness.  He  has  been  pictured 
as  the  colossus  who  bestrode  Europe,  by  his  towering  personality  dwarf- 
ing all  men  of  his  age,  and  bringing  the  most  wonderful  things  to  pass  by 
the  sheer  force  of  his  character  and  will.  The  explanation  is  simple  to 
naivete,  too  simple  to  be  convincing.  Something  is  no  doubt  to  be 
ascribed  to  the  personality  of  a  man  so  out  of  the  common,  but  more  is 
to  be  ascribed  to  Luther's  greater  opportunity.  The  difference  between 
him  and  his  predecessors  is  less  a  difference  of  men  than  of  times.  In 
Germany  of  the  sixteenth  century,  as  compared  with  England  of  the 
fourteenth,  or  Bohemia  and  Italy  of  the  fifteenth,  we  are  to  seek  and  find 
the  solution  of  our  historical  conundrum. 


THAT  series  of  events  which  we  are  accustomed  to  call  the  Reformation 
should  be  viewed  as  a  continuation  of  that  other  great  movement  known 
as  the  Renaissance.  Humanism  was  a  purely  intellectual  revolt  against 
the  shackles  of  the  scholastic  philosophy  and  ecclesiastical  authority. 
Nothing  could  be  more  natural,  however,  than  that,  once  the  liberty  to 
think  had  been  vindicated,  the  new-won  freedom  should  be  used  to 
question  whether  scholasticism  and  ecclesiasticism  had  a  more  rightful 
authority  over  men's  souls  than  over  their  minds.  The  spirit  of  intellec- 
tual freedom  fostered  by  the  Renaissance  inevitably  issued  in  the  insur- 
rection of  the  human  mind  against  the  absolute  power  claimed  by  the 

xiii 


nv 


INTRODUCTION 


spiritual  order,  which  we  know  as  the  Reformation.  If  the  Renaissance 
was,  to  use  Michelet's  phrase,  the  discovery  of  the  world  and  of  man,  the 
Reformation  was  the  rediscovery  of  the  soul  and  its  God. 

Michelet's  phrase  is,  after  all,  more  striking  than  true.  The  spiritual 
significance  of  the  Renaissance  is  that  it  was  the  rediscovery  of  the  indi- 
vidual. Medieval  society,  following  the  ancient  Roman  theory  that  a 
man  does  not  exist  for  himself,  but  for  the  State,  allowed  the  smallest 
scope  for  the  individual,  and  made  the  community  the  all  in  all.  The 
corporate  idea  was  so  emphasized  as  to  dwarf  the  individual  till  he  became 
a  cipher,  which  had  value  only  when  annexed  to  the  significant  figure, 
society.  From  this  theory  it  followed  that  the  rights  of  individuals  were 
a  negligible  quantity,  as  compared  with  the  duties  owed  to  State  and 
Church.  The  abuse  of  freedom  of  thought,  for  example,  was  considered 
a  much  greater  evil  than  the  denial  of  freedom  of  thought.  The  code  of 
law  and  of  morals  limited  individual  action  in  every  thinkable  way;  and 
so  far  were  the  people  as  a  whole  under  the  sway  of  such  ideas  that  public 
opinion  often  went  beyond  the  law  in  its  denial  of  the  rights  of  the  indi- 
vidual. A  reaction  against  such  a  state  of  things  was  the  only  hope  of 
Europe  to  avoid  such  stagnation,  such  arrest  of  mental  and  spiritual 
development,  as  befel  China  about  the  beginning  of  our  Christian  era. 

While  the  Renaissance  in  Germany  owed  its  origin  to  Italy,  it  speedily 
assumed  a  character  of  its  own.  In  Italy,  Humanism  was  superseded 
and  almost  eclipsed  by  Art,  but  in  Germany  Humanism  easily  retained  its 
first  place.  The  more  serious  and  thoughtful  nature  of  the  German 
people,  and  their  native  tendency  to  metaphysics,  were  perhaps  the  chief 
factors  in  the  impartation  of  this  different  trend  to'  the  revival  in  that 
land.  It  was  in  Germany,  too,  that  the  new  art  originated, which  so  pow- 
erfully promoted  the  revival,  the  art  of  printing.  The  invention  of 
movable  types  was  the  greatest  single  achievement  in  the  progress  of 
civilization,  if  we  consider  the  enormous  results  of  the  invention,  which 
are  even  yet  only  beginning  to  be  manifest.  By  the  year  1500  there 
were  six  presses  at  Mainz,  where  the  art  seems  to  have  originated,  in 
Ulm  six,  in  Basel  sixteen,  in  Augsburg  twenty  and  in  Niirnberg  twenty- 
five.  A  single  firm  of  printers,  the  Kobergers,  had  a  little  later  twenty-- 
four presses,  and  employed  a  hundred  men  as  typesetters  and  pressmen, 
and  by  their  enterprise  they  are  said  to  have  become  rich.  From  Germany 
the  new  art  was  extended  to  Italy,  Spain  and  England;  and  in  all  these 
presses  the  first  employees  were  men  trained  in  their  art  in  Germany,  if 
not  of  German  birth. 

In  addition  to  these  private  establishments,  many  of  the  monasteries 
set  up  presses,  some  of  which  are  maintained  to  this  day.  The  monks 
were  not  so  lacking  in  intelligence,  no  matter  what  their  enemies  have 


INTRODUCTION  xv 

said  about  them,  as  not  to  perceive  that  the  day  of  written  manuscripts 
had  passed;  nor  were  they  so  deficient  in  shrewdness  as  to  let  slip  the 
opportunity  to  keep  themselves,  for  a  time  at  least,  where  they  had  been 
for  ages,  in  the  leadership  of  the  world  of  literature.  It  is  not  true  that 
the  Church  discouraged  the  art  of  printing  from  the  beginning;  on  the 
contrary,  the  Church  from  the  beginning  understood  the  value  of  the 
art,  and  strove  to  chain  the  press  to  her  chariot  wheel.  Happily  for  the 
world,  the  effort  was  futile;  the  "press  proved  too  powerful  an  agency  to 
be  controlled  by  the  Church,  and  soon  won  its  independence.  All  that 
the  Church  was  finally  able  to  effect  was  the  establishment  of  the  Index 
and  the  prohibition  of  heretical  books. 

The  book  trade  of  the  sixteenth  century  was  simply  the  continuation 
of  the  previous  trade  in  manuscripts.  In  this  trade  the  monasteries,  as 
the  principal  producers  of  manuscripts,  had  taken  the  lead;  but  there  had 
developed  a  small  class  of  shopkeepers  and  pedlers  who  bought  and  sold 
manuscripts.  The  rapid  multiplication  of  cheap  books  greatly  increased 
the  number  and  activity  of  such  traders,  and  soon  at  every  fair  there  was 
a  bookstall,  while  the  pedlers  who  scoured  the  country  districts  carried  a 
parcel  of  the  new  books  in  their  packs.  It  was  the  existence  of  these 
facilities  for  the  rapid  publication  and  circulation  of  his  writings  when 
Luther  began  his  work,  that  made  possible  the  prompt  reception  of  the 
ideas  set  forth  in  his  Theses  and  early  polemic  treatises  against  the  Church 
of  Rome  and  the  Papacy.  Without  the  printing-press,  it  is  hardly  too  much 
to  say,  the  German  Reformation  could  not  have  occurred.  Something 
might  have  been  attempted  in  the  way  of  ecclesiastical  reform,  and  might 
even  have  succeeded,  but  it  would  have  been  a  far  different  affair  from 
the  historical  movement,  without  this  powerful  alliance  of  the  press. 

It  is  important  to  mark  that  in  this  age,  and  indeed  for  a  century  or 
two  more,  the  trade  of  printer  and  the  business  of  publisher  were  not  yet 
differentiated.  Most  printers  were  also  publishers,  though  they  often 
printed  books  that  they  did  not  sell,  the  author  himself  taking  the  whole 
edition  and  effecting  its  distribution  for  himself.  Frequently  a  patron  or 
subscribers  were  obtained  in  advance  by  the  author  to  insure  the  defray- 
ment of  the  cost  of  publication  and  the  placing  of  the  books  in  the  hands 
of  readers.  No  copyright  in  literary  property  was  recognized.  The 
principle  seems  to  have  obtained  in  the  laws  of  all  countries  that  by  print- 
ing his  book  the  author  dedicated  it  to  the  public,  and  thereafter  anybody 
had  a  right  to  multiply  copies  at  his  own  risk  and  to  his  own  sole  profit. 
Copyright  is  an  artificial  monopoly  created  by  specific  statutes,  and  be- 
longs to  a  later  social  stage.  The  effect  of  such  free  trade  in  literature 
was  greatly  to  circumscribe  the  profits  of  both  author  and  printer,  especially 
of  the  author.  Erasmus,  easily  the  first  man  of  letters  of  his  day,  often 


xvi  INTRODUCTION 

complains  in  his  correspondence  that  his  books  were  so  frequently 
reprinted  by  others  that  he  himself  derived  little  profit  from  their  sale, 
though  many  thousands  had  been  sold.  Under  such  conditions,  books 
were  relatively  plentiful  and  cheap. 

It  is  well  known  that  the  first  printed  book  was  the  Bible,  an  edition  of 
the  Vulgate  having  been  sent  forth  from  the  Mainz  press  of  Gutenburg 
in  1455,  and  by  1500  there  had  been  nearly  a  hundred  editions  of  the 
Latin  Scriptures  published  in  Europe,  with  the  approval  of  the  Church. 
But  in  Germany  there  was  no  formal  disapproval  of  the  publication  of 
Bibles  in  the  vernacular,  though  the  Church  seems  to  have  done  nothing 
actively  to  promote  such  publications,  and  no  fewer  than  fifteen  such 
editions  were  in  circulation  before  Luther  posted  his  Theses.  Just  what 
an  "edition"  means  in  this  connection  is  not  a  little  difficult  to  determine; 
in  some  cases  an  edition  consisted  of  a  thousand  copies,  but  in  others  it 
was  doubtless  considerably  less.  It  is  safe  to  estimate  that  fully  a  hundred 
thousand  copies  of  the  German  Bible  were  in  circulation  in  Germany  at 
the  beginning  of  the  Reformation.  It  may  well  be  doubted  if  more  copies 
of  the  Scriptures  were  in  circulation  in  the  England  of  Elizabeth.  And 
this  is  to  say  nothing  of  portions  of  the  Bible;  and  we  know  that  there 
were  twenty-two  editions  of  the  Psalms,  and  twenty-five  of  the  Epistles 
before  1518.  John  Eck,  the  great  antagonist  of  Luther,  declared  that  he 
had  read  most  of  the  Bible  before  he  was  ten  years  old.  If  Luther  him- 
self, as  a  passage  in  his  "Table-Talk"  tells  us,  did  not  so  much  as  know 
that  there  was  a  Bible,  until  he  found  one  in  the  Erfurt  Library,  he  must 
have  taken  great  pains  to  keep  himself  in  such  a  state  of  ignorance.  Not- 
withstanding the  ravages  of  time,  and  the  great  destruction  of  property 
that  took  place  during  the  Thirty  Years'  War,  there  still  remain  in  the 
collections  of  Europe  and  America  nearly  forty  thousand  copies  of  the 
Bibles  of  this  time,  all  antedating  the  Reformation. 

The  Renaissance  hi  Germany  was  not  only  attended  by  this  new 
interest  in  literature,  but  by  a  new  interest  in  education,  such  as  we  do 
not  find  in  Italy  or  elsewhere.  Nine  of  the  most  celebrated  universities 
of  the  period  were  founded  within  a  space  of  fifteen  years:  Greifswald, 
1456;  Basel  and  Freiburg,  1460;  Ingolstadt  and  Leipzig,  1472;  Trier, 
1473;  Tubingen  and  Metz,  1477;  Wittenberg,  1502;  Frankfort-on-Oder, 
1506.  Elementary  schools,  that  should  act  as  feeders  to  the  universities, 
were  established  everywhere.  The  esteem  hi  which  education  is  really 
held  among  any  people  may  be  accurately  computed  from  the  pay  that  is 
given  to  the  teacher.  In  American  communities  the  valuation  of  the 
teaching  profession  is  measured  by  the  fact  that  women  teachers  are  paid 
a  little  more  than  a  good  cook  of  the  same  sex,  but  less  than  a  stenographer 
or  clerk;  while  a  male  teacher,  if  he  is  fortunate,  may  receive  as  much  as 


INTRODUCTION  xvii 

a  carpenter  or  bricklayer,  though  even  a  college  president  receives  a 
stipend  less  than  the  French  chef  of  a  rich  man.  We  pretend,  of  course,  to 
consider  a  man  like  President  Eliot,  of  Harvard  University,  a  more  val- 
uable man  to  our  country  than  the  most  skillful  concocter  of  an  omelette, 
but  it  is  mere  pretense.  As  Americans  of  a  certain  class  are  fond  of  saying, 
" money  talks,"  and  the  money  is  given,  not  to  the  prince  of  educators 
but  to  the  knight  of  the  saucepan.  But  during  the  Renaissance  period 
they  did  otherwise  in  Germany.  Then  and  there  the  pay  of  masters  in 
the  schools,  of  professors  in  the  universities,  equaled  the  fees  of  archi- 
tects, or  the  salaries  of  court  chamberlains;  and  the  teacher  was  thus  put 
on  the  economic  level  of  the  other  professions,  or  those  employments 
that  were  open  to  men  of  birth  and  blood.  It  is  a  duty  to  record  also  that 
Germany,  like  other  countries,  has  suffered  a  sad  relapse,  and  now  treats 
her  teachers  little  better  than  America. 

One  of  the  earliest  German  Humanists  was  Nicholas  of  Cusa  (1401- 
1464).  He  was  a  prelate  of  the  Church,  and  rose  to  the  rank  of  Cardinal; 
and  his  career  alone  does  much  to  relieve  the  Church  of  Germany  from 
the  reproach  of  determined  and  unintelligent  opposition  to  the  new 
learning.  From  1451  to  the  close  of  his  life,  Cardinal  Nicholas  bestirred 
himself  to  reform  the  abuses  rife  in  the  Church,  to  promote  the  cause  of 
sound  learning,  and  to  extend  the  new  interest  in  scientific  inquiry.  He 
restored  a  strict  discipline,  preached  a  pure  Gospel,  taught  letters  and 
science,  accumulated  manuscripts,  and  first  directed  the  attention  of 
Germany  to  the  importance  and  fruitfulness  of  classical  studies.  He  was 
in  advance  of  his  age  in  many  things,  notably  in  upholding  the  new  and 
unpopular  doctrine  of  the  earth's  rotation  on  its  axis,  for  which  the  Inqui- 
sition condemned  Galileo  nearly  two  centuries  later.  He  also  advocated 
that  revision  of  the  Julian  calendar  which  was  actually  undertaken  by 
Pope  Gregory  XIII  in  1582. 

Hardly  less  influential  in  promoting  Humanism  was  Jacob  Wimpheling 
(1450-1528),  often  called  the  preceptor  of  Germany.  He  was  first  printer 
and  publisher,  scholar  also,  but  above  all  educator.  His  "Guide  for 
German  Youth"  (1497)  and  "Youth"  (1500)  were  epoch-making  writings. 
In  these  Wimpheling  not  only  pointed  out  the  defects  of  the  current 
education,  but  outlined  as  clearly  a  better  method.  It  was  the  first 
adequate  discussion  of  education  to  be  published  in  Europe — and  by 
"adequate"  one  means,  of  course,  not  an  anticipation  of  the  theory  and 
practice  of  education  as  developed  in  these  later  times,  but  a  theory 
abreast  of  the  knowledge  of  literature,  science  and  psychology  then  pos- 
sessed. Measured  by  his  own  times,  Wimpheling  was  one  of  the  strongest 
and  most  useful  men  that  Germany  has  ever  produced.  But  his  courage 
was  far  inferior  to  his  vision.  When  the  crisis  came  his  nerve  failed.  He 


xviii  INTRODUCTION 

was  one  of  the  men  of  his  age,  of  whom  there  were  not  a  few,  who  were 
overwhelmed  with  anxiety  for  reform  in  the  Church  and  scared  to  death 
when  it  came.  When  Luther  first  began  his  work,  Wimpheling  hailed 
him  with  joy  as  the  coming  deliverer  of  Germany;  but  as  the  Reformation 
progressed,  the  "divine  brutality "  of  Luther,  as  Heine  called  it,  first 
disgusted  and  then  repelled  him.  He  forgot,  and  too  many  others  forgot 
that  (to  quote  Heine  again)  "revolutions  are  not  made  with  orange 
blossoms. " 

As  Humanism  increased  in  adherents  and  waxed  in  influence,  there 
gradually  developed  three  centers  of  humanistic  activity,  three  propa- 
ganda, so  to  say,  in  Germany.  Each  of  these  had  its  distinctive  character 
and  import. 

The  first  of  these  was  the  University  of  Heidelberg,  founded  in  1386, 
one  of  the  most  justly  famous  institutions  in  Europe.  It  was  hither  that 
the  youthful  Melanchthon  came  for  his  degree,  when  refused  it  at 
Tubingen,  not  because  of  defective  attainments,  but  because  he  was 
deemed  too  young  for  such  an  honor.  Hither  before  him  had  come  his 
older  relative,  the  great  scholar  Reuchlin,  who  divides  with  Erasmus 
the  honor  of  being  the  foremost  Humanist  of  the  age.  Reuchlin  had 
gained  his  education  at  the  University  of  Paris,  and  after  taking  his 
Master's  degree  taught  for  brief  periods  in  several  universities.  His 
earlier  interest  was  in  the  Greek  classics,  and  his  first  distinction  was 
gained  as  a  teacher  of  Greek.  But  about  1490  he  became  interested  in 
the  study  of  Hebrew,  learning  that  language  in  the  only  way  then  open 
to  him,  from  oral  instruction  by  a  Hebrew  rabbi,  and  thereby  exposing 
himself  to  those  imputations  of  heresy  that  followed  him  persistently 
during  the  rest  of  his  life.  In  1496  the  Elector  Palatine  persuaded  him 
to  take  a  chair  of  Hebrew  at  Heidelberg,  where  he  speedily  became  the 
foremost  scholar  of  Europe  in  the  Hebrew  language  and  Old  Testament 
literature.  The  first  Hebrew  Grammar  was  published  by  him,  and  the 
way  was  thus  opened  for  the  study  of  the  Old  Testament  in  the  original 
by  Christian  scholars  generally. 

But  although  a  great  scholar,  Reuchlin  was  a  man  of  marked  weakness 
of  character.  Irresolution  was  his  greatest  defect;  he  could  not  bring 
himself  to  decide  on  a  course  of  action  and  then  pursue  it  with  persistence 
and  boldness.  This  was  well  illustrated  by  a  controversy  into  which  he 
plunged  with  one  Pfeffercorn,  a  convert  from  Judaism,  who  with  the 
usual  zeal  of  the  convert  proceeded  to  persecute  his  former  religionists, 
and  obtained  imperial  sanction  for  the  destruction  of  their  writings  at  his 
indiscretion.  Reuchlin  opposed  this  plan,  denounced  the  indiscriminate 
burning  of  Jewish  books,  especially  the  Talmud,  but  when  Pfeffercorn 
succeeded  in  raising  a  great  storm  against  him,  he  began  to  temporize 


INTRODUCTION  xix 

and  waver,  and  in  the  end  was  compelled  to  defend  himself  against  charges 
of  heresy.  His  lack  of  firmness  and  fatal  facility  of  self-contradiction 
were  accompanied  by  an  irascible  temper  and  the  vituperative  vocabulary 
of  the  times;  and  so  his  writings  make  painful  reading  for  one  who  would 
fain  admire,  if  he  could,  a  scholar  whose  contribution  to  Biblical  learning 
was  so  monumental.  But  it  is  impossible  to  do  more  than  pity  Reuchlin, 
and  to  feel  relief  that  he  was  finally  vindicated  from  the  charge  of  heresy, 
at  the  same  time  one  recognizes  in  his  own  timid  vacillation  the  chief  cause 
of  his  woes.  Reuchlin  was  the  early  teacher  of  Melanchthon,  and  would 
deserve  our  grateful  recollection  for  tnat  fact  alone,  did  not  a  suspicion 
intrude  itself  that  he  managed  to  infuse  into  the  younger  man  a  good 
measure  of  that  moral  pusillanimity  and  inveterate  love  of  compromise 
which  was  the  chief  defect  in  the  character  of  Luther's  chief  coadjutor. 
Reuchlin,  like  Erasmus  and  Wimpheling,  was  not  a  little  terrified  by  the 
Reformation  when  it  came,  and,  in  his  later  years  as  professor  of  Hebrew 
at  Ingolstadt  and  Tubingen,  opposed  Luther  and  Melanchthon,  after 
having  in  vain  tried  to  induce  his  relative  to  withdraw  from  Wittenberg 
and  the  Reformation  cause.  He  died  in  communion  with  the  Roman 
Church,  but  not  in  sympathy  with  it.  His  heart  was  with  the  reformers. 
If  he  had  only  possessed  the  courage  to  follow  his  convictions,  instead  of 
listening  to  his  fears! 

The  second  center  of  Humanist  influence  was  the  University  of  Erfurt, 
founded  in  1378.  The  leader  of  the  Erfurt  group  of  Humanists  was  Con- 
rad Mutianus  Rufus,  prebendary  of  Gotha.  He  was  a  Neo-Platonist, 
rather  than  a  Christian,  a  brother  in  spirit  and  method  to  the  Italian 
Humanists  of  whom  Poliziano  was  so  eminent  an  example.  He  was  at 
heart  not  only  hostile  to  the  Church  of  his  age,  but  indifferent  to  the 
Christian  religion;  nor  did  he  take  great  pains  to  disguise  this  attitude. 
In  later  times  he  would  have  been  called  a  Deist,  or  possibly  an  Agnostic. 
He  wrote  little,  not  at  all  for  publication,  mostly  letters  to  his  trusted 
friends.  He  was  a  teacher  rather  than  a  man  of  letters.  He  compared 
himself  to  Socrates — a  comparison  more  flattering  to  him  than  to  the  great 
Athenian  seeker  after  truth,  for  Mutian  was  rather  a  trifler  than  a  seeker. 
He  held  that  the  Bible  is  full  of  paradoxes  and  riddles  and  metaphors. 
Truth  is  thus  wrapped  in  mystery,  and  we  should  follow  the  example  of 
Scripture  and  keep  silence  regarding  the  highest  verities,  or  else  present 
them  under  the  cloak  of  fable  and  allegory,  lest  we  cast  our  pearls  before 
swine.  Toward  the  Church,  with  its  doctrines  and  sacraments,  he  was 
contemptuously  indifferent.  The  mass  he  considered  a  waste  of  time; 
he  rejected  auricular  confession  as  an  impertinence;  he  called  the  monks 
"hooded  monsters"  and  lenten  fasting  "fools7  diet."  By  example  he 
encouraged  light  jesting  at  all  things  held  sacred  by  others.  Under  such 


xx  INTRODUCTION 

influence  many  of  the  younger  Humanists  became  not  only  openly 
immoral  in  life,  but  irreligious  scoffers  at  holy  things. 

It  is  customary  to  regard  the  monks  of  this  time  as  mere  Obscurantists, 
men  opposed  to  the  new  learning  because  it  was  new,  in  their  ignorance 
striving  to  repress  all  knowledge  but  the  study  of  the  Fathers.  This  was 
probably  true  of  some  monks,  as  of  some  who  were  not  monks.  There 
is  Obscurantism  at  the  present  day;  ignorant,  besotted  conservatism  has 
never  yet  lacked  representatives  at  any  stage  of  the  world's  history.  But 
the  monks  were  not  all  opposed  to  learning;  many  were  friendly  to  genuine 
enlightenment;  and  in  the  beginning  of  the  Renaissance  the  monastic 
institutions  showed  marked  tendencies  toward  taking  the  lead  in  the 
new  movement.  But  the  spirit  of  such  men  as  Mutian  was  well  fitted  to 
bring  the  new  learning  under  suspicion,  and  to  furnish  a  plausible  justifi- 
cation for  the  Obscurantists  to  maintain  that  Humanism  was  necessarily 
the  foe  of  the  Church  and  of  religion. 

Another  member  of  the  Erfurt  school  did  much  to  strengthen  this 
impression.  Crotus  Rubianus — which  was  the  pretentious  name  assumed 
by  Johann  Jager  (1480-1540) — was  twice  rector  of  the  university,  and  was 
renowned  for  his  learning  and  wit,  some  of  which  fame  he  deserved.  He 
was  seriously  lacking  in  moral  earnestness,  and  opposed  what  he  regarded 
as  the  corruptions  of  the  Church,  less  because  they  were  corruptions  than 
because  he  found  them  inconvenient  to  himself.  With  others  he  wrote 
and  published  the  Epistolce  Obscurorum  Virorum,  next  to  the  Encomium 
Morice  of  Erasmus  perhaps  the  most  famous  satire  of  the  age.  It  was 
read  all  over  Europe  with  shouts  of  laughter,  all  the  louder  because  some 
of  the  monks  did  not  at  first  perceive  the  satire,  and  so  gave  their  approval 
to  the  work  as  a  learned  defense  of  conservative  views.  The  book  consists 
of  a  series  of  letters,  purporting  to  be  written  by  various  monks,  full  of 
barbarous  Latin,  ignorance,  superstition,  quibbling  about  abstruse  and 
trivial  theological  questions,  intolerance  of  the  new  learning,  and  general 
folly.  The  Obscurantists  were  thus  held  up  to  a  scorn  and  ridicule  more 
or  less  deserved,  and  the  impression  was  sedulously  conveyed  to  all 
readers  that  monks  were  invariably  of  this  type.  Luther  gave  the  book 
only  a  faint  and  carefully  qualified  approval.  Erasmus  said  the  authors 
had  gone  too  far,  and  what  the  author  of  the  "Praise  of  Folly"  thought 
was  too  far  in  the  castigation  of  monks  must  be  conceded  to  be  very  far 
indeed.  Luther  was  much  displeased  by  the  irreligious  spirit  of  the 
" Letters,"  though  he  was  in  no  mood  to  defend  the  monks.  It  is  rather 
difficult  for  us  to  understand  the  reason  for  the  great  popularity  of  the 
book,  and  particularly  hard  for  us  to  comprehend  why  the  sixteenth 
century  thought  it  so  funny.  The  humor  seems  to  have  mostly  evapo- 
rated in  these  four  hundred  years.  The  jests  that  set  all  Europe  in  a  roar 


INTRODUCTION  xxi 

hardly  provoke  a  faint  smile  now,  which  naturally  suggests  a  query: 
Will  our  humor  be  better  appreciated  by  posterity  after  a  lapse  of  another 
four  hundred  years?  In  the  twenty-fourth  century  will  men  hold  their 
sides  as  they  read  Mark  Twain?  And  will  Punch  and  Puck  seem  funny 
papers  to  the  men  of  that  time? 

A  notable  man  of  this  age,  who  must  be  classed  with  the  Erfurt  group 
by  affinity  rather  than  by  residence,  was  Ulric  von  Hutten.  A  man  of  the 
knightly  order,  who  was  hi  youth  an  involuntary  monk,  but  escaped 
from  the  monastic  life,  and  thereafter  hated  monks  and  monkery  with 
inextinguishable  hatred,  he  was  a  co-laborer  with  Crotus  in  producing 
the  "Epistles  of  Obscure  Men."  Nothing  gave  him  such  delight  as  to 
ridicule  the  ignorance,  stupidity  and  bigotry  of  the  monks,  and  to  expose 
their  immorality.  For  this  latter  task  his  career  in  the  world,  as  well  as 
his  experience  in  the  monastery,  admirably  fitted  him.  He  was  himself 
as  dissolute  as  the  monks  whom  he  attacked,  and  knew  the  ins  and  outs 
of  the  vice  of  his  day  through  personal  contact.  When  the  Reformation 
came,  Hutten  gave  Luther  his  enthusiastic  support,  but  there  was  always 
this  fundamental  difference  between  them:  Luther  was  a  man  of  deep 
spiritual  experience  and  intense  moral  earnestness;  Hutten  had  no 
spiritual  experience  and  little  moral  conviction.  Hutten  loved  liberty, 
indeed,  but  by  liberty  he  understood  license  to  do  what  he  pleased,  and 
he  favored  reformation  because  he  believed  it  would  secure  liberty. 
Luther  loved  the  truth,  and  sought  liberty  to  believe  and  teach  the  truth. 
The  one  was  essentially  a  skeptical  Humanist,  the  other  was  the  religious 
reformer.  Oil  and  water  could  mix  as  well  as  two  such  men,  and  Luther 
distrusted  Hutten  from  the  first.  When  Hutten  took  up  the  sword  for 
the  sake  of  the  Gospel,  as  he  announced,  but  really  for  his  dying  order,, 
Luther  emphatically  repudiated  him  and  his  policy.  The  revolt  of  the 
knights  failed  and  Hutten  fled  to  Switzerland,  where  by  Zwingli's  inter- 
cession he  was  given  refuge.  The  career  of  this  stormy  petrel  of  reform 
was  over;  he  escaped  the  sword  only  to  die  of  disease,  induced  by  his 
dissolute  life,  passing  away  at  Zurich  in  1523.  A  man  of  more  brilliant 
talents  never  made  utter  shipwreck  of  himself  and  a  great  career  for  lack, 
of  moral  ballast. 

A  special  interest  attaches  to  this  Erfurt  group  of  Humanists  from  the 
fact  that  they  were  in  their  glory  when  Luther  was  a  student  at  that 
university,  and  it  might  be  presumed  that  he  would  be  powerfully  in- 
fluenced by  them.  The  presumption  is  sustained  by  no  evidence;  on  the 
contrary,  Luther  is  disclosed  to  us  in  his  earliest  writings  as  little  affected 
by  humanistic  ideas.  He  is  still  in  bondage  to  Aristotle  and  the  medieval 
dialectic;  he  betrays  no  special  acquaintance  with  the  classics,  particularly 
with  Greek  authors,  and  shows  no  enthusiasm  for  their  study.  In  this 


xxii  INTRODUCTION 

respect  he  is  a  violent  contrast  to  Erasmus,  and  even  to  Zwingli,  both  of 
whom  might  without  injustice  be  described  as  Humanists  first  and 
Christians  afterwards.  To  Luther,  from  the  beginning,  religion  was  the 
one  all-absorbing  interest  of  life,  and  the  Bible  was  the  one  form  of  lit- 
erature— worthy  of  a  study  so  intense  as  practically  to  exclude  from  serious 
attention  all  other  forms  of  literature.  He  was  not  so  much  opposed  to 
classical  studies  as  indifferent  to  them.  The  Erfurt  school  did  not  have 
its  customary  influence  on  him;  it  not  only  did  not  undermine  his  respect 
for  the  Church,  but  this  sentiment  steadily  increased  in  him,  and  until  he 
had  passed  his  thirtieth  year  there  were  few  more  devoted  adherents  of 
Rome  than  Luther. 

The  third  center  of  humanistic  influence  was  Niirnberg.  There  was  no 
university  here  to  furnish  a  bond  of  union,  but  a  justly  celebrated  coterie 
of  scholars  and  artists  made  this  one  of  the  foremost  seats  of  the  new 
learning.  First  among  these  may  be  reckoned  Johann  Miiller,  "the 
wonder  of  his  time"  (1435-1476).  He  was  the  most  eminent  student  of 
mathematics  and  astronomy  of  the  age,  and  the  most  famous  writer  on 
those  subjects.  He  may  be  regarded  as  the  restorer  of  scientific  research, 
and  by  his  popular  lectures  he  did  much  to  make  generally  known  the 
results  of  the  best  scientific  inquiry  of  his  time.  Miiller  established  the 

i  first  factory  in  Europe  for  making  astronomical  instruments,  and  built 
the  first  complete  and  scientifically  appointed  observatory.  He  was  the 
first  to  calculate  the  size,  distances  and  orbits  of  the  planets.  His 
accurate  observations  and  calculations  were  of  immense  practical 
value  to  navigators,  and  it  is  not  too  much  to  say  that  without 
them  the  voyages  of  Columbus  and  other  discoverers  would  have 
been  impossible.  To  this  comparatively  unknown  man,  quite  as 
much  as  to  the  daring  seamen  who  used  his  results,  we  owe  the 
greatest  event  in  modern  history,  the  discovery  of  a  new  world,  with 
all  its  incalculable  consequences. 

A  more  famous  man  in  his  own  day,  though  hardly  a  more  useful,  was 
Willibald  Pirkheimer  (1470-1530),  of  noble  family,  rich,  renowned  as 
jurist,  statesman,  orator,  historian.  His  wealth  and  the  friendship  of 
Emperor  Maximilian  combined  to  make  him  perhaps  the  most  influential 
Humanist  of  Germany.  He  was  a  man  of  considerable  learning,  and  of 
still  greater  power  of  appreciating  the  learning  of  others,  so  that  he  was 
well  fitted  to  become  the  German  Maecenas.  His  house  was  for  many 
years  the  center  of  Humanism.  He  promoted  the  publication  of  learned 
works,  especially  editions  of  the  Fathers,  for  which  he  often  wrote  pref- 
aces and  introductions.  He  defended  Reuchlin  in  the  controversy  with 
Pfeffercorn,  and  it  is  believed  that  his  powerful  intercession  turned  the 
tide  in  the  great  scholar's  favor.  He  admired  and  supported  Luther 


INTRODUCTION  xxiii 

during  the  reformer's  earlier  work,  but  deserted  the  cause  after  the  edict 
of  Worms  and  from  1525  rapidly  became  more  conservative.  It  is  not 
correct  to  say  that  he  returned  to  the  Roman  Church,  for  he  had  never 
left  it,  but  one  might  say  that  he  became  once  more  loyal  to  that  Church. 
He  had  been  alarmed  at  the  course  that  Luther  was  taking,  for  he  was 
at  bottom  a  conservative;  but  this  is  hardly  the  whole  truth:  he  seems  to 
have  been  lacking  in  genuine  religious  feeling,  and  possibly  in  moral 
courage  also. 

On  the  whole,  the  most  celebrated  citizen  of  Niirnberg,  and  one  of  the 
greatest  men  of  his  time,  was  Albert "Diirer  (1471-1528).  Melanchthon 
said  of  him  very  truly  that,  though  a  great  painter,  this  was  one  of  the 
least  of  his  accomplishments.  He  alone  can  dispute  with  Leonardo  the 
palm  of  universal  genius.  He  established  art  on  scientific  principles, 
perfecting  the  knowledge  of  linear  perspective,  and  as  a  student  of  anat- 
omy was  the  rival  of  Michelangelo.  He  excelled  in  arts  that  it  never 
occurred  to  Leonardo  to  attempt,  engraving  and  etching;  and  if  he  was 
not  the  inventor  of  the  latter  art,  he  was  at  least  the  first  to  bring  it  to 
something  like  perfection.  He  discovered  and  practiced  the  method  of 
printing  engravings  in  two  colors,  and  thus  laid  the  foundation  for  the 
modern  art  of  chromo-lithography.  To  crown  all,  the  writings  he  has 
left  show  clearly  that  if  he  had  cared  to  devote  himself  seriously  to  ex- 
pression of  thought  in  words,  he  might  have  dethroned  Erasmus  and 
become  the  first  man  of  letters  of  his  age. 

Dlirer  has  left  us  a  very  interesting  portrait  of  Erasmus,  in  the  black 
and  white  in  which  he  did  his  best  work,  and  one  regrets  much  that, 
notwithstanding  his  intimate  acquaintance  with  Melanchthon,  he  seems 
never  to  have  drawn  or  painted  the  great  scholar's  likeness.  With  Luther 
he  had  slight  personal  acquaintance,  if  any,  but  he  highly  respected  the 
reformer  and  followed  the  course  of  the  Reformation  with  an  interest 
that  was  much  more  than  intellectual  curiosity.  There  is  hardly  any 
more  moving  passage  in  the  literature  of  this  period  than  the  entry  hi  his 
journal  when  the  news  reached  him  that  Luther  had  been  captured  by  a 
band  of  robbers  on  his  return  from  Worms,  and  had  probably  perished. 
We,  who  are  in  the  secret  of  that  dramatic  episode  in  Luther's  career,  can 
with  difficulty  understand  the  consternation  of  even  the  best  friends  of 
the  Wittenberg  professor  when  he  thus  disappeared.  Diirer  really  believed 
that  Luther  would  return  no  more  and  mourned  for  him  as  for  one  dead. 
The  great  Niirnberg  artist  was  a  man  of  sincere  piety,  of  simple  nature, 
and  he  rejoiced  in  the  work  of  reformation  and  the  prospect  of  a  purified 
Church.  Nor  does  he  seem  later  to  have  been  frightened  into  forsaking 
the  good  cause,  possibly  because  he  passed  from  the  conflicts  of  earth 
before  the  supreme  test  came  to  the  friends  of  reform. 


xxiv  INTRODUCTION 

One  of  the  most  influential  of  the  NiirnbeiJ  men  of  letters  was  a 
Humanist  by  courtesy  only.  Hans  Sachs  (1494-1576)  was  a  plain  man, 
a  shoemaker,  learned  in  the  lore  of  the  people  rather  than  in  the  classics. 
From  1510  to  1515  he  traveled  about  Germany,  working  at  his  trade  and 
accumulating  knowledge  that  he  afterwards  laid  under  tribute  for  his 
writings.  For  this  shoemaker  was  the  most  popular  poet  of  the  age,  and 
is  said  before  his  death  to  have  written  over  five  thousand  poems.  He 
first  gained  the  ear  of  the  people  by  his  publication  of  "The  Wittenberg 
Nightingale,"  in  1523,  in  which,  as  might  be  inferred  from  the  title,  he 
celebrated  the  work  of  Luther  as  reformer.  The  poem  had  a  wide  circu- 
lation and  a  profound  effect — the  ideas  of  reformation  were  thus  addressed 
to  all  classes  and  introduced  to  many  people  who  perhaps  could  not  have 
been  persuaded  to  read  a  tract,  still  less  a  theological  treatise.  Sachs  by 
no  means  confined  himself  to  religious  subjects,  but  took  a  wide  range  over 
all  things  that  are  of  common  interest  to  mankind.  Like  our  Longfellow, 
he  excels  in  the  simple  treatment  of  homely  (and  some  would  say  trite) 
themes,  and  deserves  to  be  called  a  household  poet.  After  enjoying  great 
fame  in  his  lifetime,  and  in  the  generations  immediately  succeeding, 
Sachs  fell  into  undeserved  oblivion,  from  which  he  was  rescued  by  Goethe, 
himself  poet  and  critic  enough  to  feel  the  charm  of  Sachs7  simple  verses. 
A  new  edition  of  his  poems  was  published  in  1776,  and  since  then  there 
have  been  numerous  reprints  and  he  has  found  many  appreciative  readers. 
Besides  their  naturalness,  Sachs'  poems  are  distinguished  for  their  human 
feeling,  their  prolific  invention,  their  wit,  their  descriptive  powers.  There 
was  no  such  poet  of  the  German  people  before  his  day;  there  has  hardly 
been  another  since. 

Other  native  literature  of  this  age  was  mostly  poetry;  German  prose 
was  yet  to  be  born,  but  in  song  people  found  expression  for  their  thought. 
Songs  on  secular  subjects,  hymns  on  religious,  were  numerous  and  popular. 
The  common  impression  that  Luther  invented  German  hymnology  is, 
like  so  many  common  impressions,  utterly  wrong.  In  this  case,  the  eulo- 
gists of  Luther,  perhaps  ignorantly,  have  done  their  best  to  create  and 
perpetuate  this  false  notion.  Luther  seized  upon  an  institution  that  he 
found  in  existence,  and  used  it  with  all  his  musical  talent  and  religious 
genius  to  promote  the  Reformation.  For  a  time  he  succeeded  in  thrusting 
the  secular  songs  into  the  background,  and  made  his  hymns  take  their 
place  among  the  German  people.  Even  the  Roman  Catholics  sang  Ein' 
feste  Burg  ist  unser  Gott,  as  why  should  they  not?  since  the  sentiment  is 
neither  Roman  nor  Protestant,  but  Christian. 

Such  was,  in  brief,  the  intellectual  state  of  Germany  out  of  which  the 
Reformation  grew.  It  was  a  period  of  quickening  into  new  life,  the 
coming  to  self-consciousness  of  a  great  people.  Hutten  expressed  the 


INTRODUCTION  xxv 

thought  of  multitudes  w._en  he  exclaimed,  "Oh,  what  a  century!    Souls 
are  waking!    It  is  a  joy  to  live!"  l 

II 

THE  sixteenth  century  witnessed  a  political  revolution  in  Germany  that 
may  be  described  as  the  completion  of  a  long-continued  process  of  trans- 
formation of  the  Holy  Roman  Empire.  The  imperial  theory  had  never 
been  realized  since  the  revival  of  the  Empire  under  Charlemagne,  but  by 
the  year  1500  theory  and  fact  had  come  to  be  ludicrously  at  variance. 
Men  continued  to  speak  of  a  Holy  Roman  Empire,  it  is  true,  though 
already  Voltaire's  jibe  was  justified,  and  it  was  evidently  not  an  empire,  ^ 
nor  Roman,  nor  holy.  For,  instead  of  universal  dominion,  the  ancient 
theory  of  imperium,  the  so-called  Empire  included  but  a  fragment  of 
Europe;  it  was  German,  not  Roman;  and  its  whole  history  was  a  denial 
of  everything  implied  in  the  concept  "holy."  Imperial  institutions  were, 
in  truth,  but  a  vague  tradition  of  past  glories,  not  the  actual  basis  of  law 
and  fact  on  which  the  political  life  of  Germany  rested.  Yet  the  glamour  of 
the  past  blinded  men  to  present  fact.  Even  in  the  sixteenth  century,  the 
title  of  Emperor  was  recognized  throughout  Europe  as  entitling  its  pos- 
sessor to  precedence  and  dignity  over  all  other  Christian  rulers;  but  in 
the  Empire  itself,  that  is  to  say,  in  Germany,  while  there  was  still  a 
degree  of  pride  in  the  Emperor,  there  was  no  loyalty  to  him.  This  was 
partly  the  result  of  feudalism,  a  system  under  which  every  man  was  loyal 
to  his  immediate  prince,  and  each  prince  was  for  himself. 

During  the  great  interregnum,  the  princes  acquired  an  independent 
authority  that  was  never  lost,  and  the  partial  reconstitution  of  the  Empire 
under  Rudolf  of  Habsburg,  in  1273,  only  checked  them  for  a  time  in  their 
career  of  self-aggrandizement  and  disunion.  The  real  power  of  Germany 
was  thenceforth  that  of  the  great  princely  houses,  and  of  the  Emperor 
one  could  only  say,  Stat  magni  nominis  umbra.  Such  was  made  the  fun- 
damental law  of  the  Empire,  in  the  famous  Golden  Bull,  which  Charles  IV 
promulgated  in  1356,  and  by  so  doing  fixed  the  imperial  institution  as  it 
endured  with  little  change  to  the  Thirty  Years'  War.  This  bull,  which  is 
too  commonly  looked  on  as  merely  establishing  the  procedure  in  the 
election  of  an  Emperor,  is  in  fact  the  constitution  of  a  federated  monarchy, 
of  strictly  limited  powers.  It  assures  to  the  electoral  princes  an  immunity 
of  person  equal  to  that  of  the  Emperor  himself,  by  making  an  attempt 
against  the  life  of  any  one  of  them  treason  against  the  Empire.  It  grants 
to  them  privileges  truly  royal,  such  as  the  working  of  mines  within  their 
domains,  the  right  to  coin  money,  the  levying  of  taxes,  and  judicial 

1O  welches  jahrhundert!     Die  Geister  erwachen!     Es  ist  eine  Lust  zu  leben! 


xxvi  INTRODUCTION 

rights  over  their  own  subjects,  from  which  an  appeal  could  be  taken  to 
the  imperial  courts  only  in  case  of  a  denial  of  justice.  Thenceforth  it  was 
plain  to  all  men  that  the  Emperor  could  make  good  his  claim  to  reign  in 
Germany  only  as  Brennus  vindicated  his  authority  in  Rome,  by  throwing 
his  sword  into  the  scale. 

The  weakness  of  the  Emperor  lay  in  the  fact  that,  while  these  great 
powers  and  immunities  were  conceded  to  the  princes,  he  himself  had  no 
authority  to  levy  taxes  and  no  imperial  army.  While  the  princes  might 
and  did  have  their  standing  armies,  the  imperial  force  was  only  a  militia 
made  up  of  levies  voted  by  the  princes  from  time  to  time,  for  periods  and 
purposes  strictly  prescribed.  The  Reichstag,  or  Diet,  kept  tight  hold  of 
the  purse  strings,  and  the  princes  jealously  guarded  the  power  of  the 
sword — what  could  an  Emperor  so  circumscribed  be  but  a  puppet?  This 
lack  of  financial  and  military  resources  made  it  impossible  for  the  nominal 
ruler  to  enforce  even  the  shadow  of  authority  that  he  still  possessed,  and 
the  weakness  of  the  imperial  courts  was  a  continual  cause  of  well-founded 
complaint.  If  a  suitor  obtained  a  decision  from  them  in  his  favor,  it  was 
still  uncertain  whether  the  process  of  the  court  would  ever  procure  for 
him  actual  redress — in  fact,  it  was  morally  certain  that  his  adversary,  if  a 
person  of  any  consequence,  would  prove  strong  enough  to  retain  the  profits 
of  his  wrong-doing  and  defy  the  imperial  court. 

This  imperial  impotence  had  culminated  in  the  long  reign  of  Frederick 
III  (1440-1493),  whose  poverty  and  helplessness  had  made  the  title  of 
Emperor  almost  despised.  During  nearly  half  of  his  reign  he  never  ap- 
peared in  Germany,  and  hardly  made  a  pretense  of  interfering  in  its 
affairs,  preferring  to  reside  in  Vienna,  because  the  pears  grown  there  were 
so  delicious!  It  was  the  reign  of  King  Log  in  very  truth.  His  son  and 
successor,  Maximilian  I,  by  a  fortunate  and  romantic  marriage  with  the 
richest  heiress  in  Europe,  Mary  of  Burgundy,  became  a  great  personage 
in  his  own  right;  but  if  the  imperial  dignity  was,  in  consequence,  a  little 
more  respected,  the  imperial  power  was  very  slightly  increased.  Max- 
imilian spent  his  life  in  a  fruitless  struggle  to  arrest  the  disintegration  of 
the  Empire,  but  the  sons  of  Zeruiah  were  too  strong  for  him,  and  with  his 
failure  it  became  manifest  that  nothing  could  be  done  to  stay  the  develop- 
ment of  a  princely  oligarchy  as  the  supreme  power  of  the  Empire. 

The  Diet  was  the  only  feature  of  the  imperial  government  that  pos- 
sessed real  vitality,  and  it  was  of  comparatively  recent  origin.  In  the 
earlier  history  of  the  Empire,  down  to  the  fall  of  the  Hohenstaufen,  we 
find  no  such  body.  The  Golden  Bull  provided  for  an  annual  meeting  of 
the  electoral  princes,  in  order  to  assist  the  Emperor  in  his  government, 
but  as  a  matter  of  fact  meetings  were  held  only  at  long  intervals,  as  the 
necessities  of  an  increasingly  weak  administration  compelled  the  Emperor 


INTRODUCTION  xxvii 

in  emergencies  to  ask  the  princes  for  subsidies  of  both  men  and  money. 
Gradually  the  custom  became  established  of  calling  to  this  meeting  the 
other  nobles  who  had  immediate  sovereignty,  and  at  length  the  right  was 
recognized  of  all  who  held  directly  of  the  Emperor  to  attend  and  be  con- 
sulted.   The  assembly  was  thus  feudal  in  character,  not  representative. «. 
The  only  representative  feature  was  that  latest  added:  some  time  in  the 
fifteenth  century  it  became  customary  to  invite  the  free  imperial  cities  to  1 
send  delegates,  because  their  taxes  could  not  be  increased  without  their 
consent. 

For  a  long  time  these  Estates  met  as  one  body,  but  in  the  reign  of  Fred- 
erick III,  at  the  meeting  held  at  Niirnberg  in  1467,  the  rule  was  definitely 
established  that  the  Estates  should  thenceforth  meet  in  three  colleges  or 
orders.  The  first  consisted  of  the  electoral  princes:  three  ecclesiastics, 
the  Archbishops  of  Mainz,  Cologne  and  Trier;  and  four  secular  princes, 
the  King  of  Bohemia,  the  Duke  of  Saxony,  the  Count  Palatine  and  the 
Margrave  of  Brandenburg.  The  second  college  was  composed  of  the 
other  ruling  princes  and  nobles  of  the  Empire,  thirty-eight  ecclesiastics 
and  eighteen  laymen,  and  certain  of  the  more  powerful  knights.  The 
third  college  was  made  up  of  the  delegates  of  the  free  cities.  These  orders 
met  together  for  some  purposes,  but  deliberated  and  voted  separately, 
and  only  measures  that  the  first  two  had  agreed  upon  were  sent  to  the 
third  for  action.  It  does  not  appear  that  the  vote  of  the  third  college  had 
much  weight,  or  was  often  sought,  except  in  questions  of  the  taxation  of 
their  own  cities,  in  which  their  voice  was  necessarily  decisive.  However, 
the  rights  and  proceedings  of  the  three  colleges  is  an  obscure  question; 
and  the  functions  of  the  Diet  itself  were  not  precisely  defined  until  the 
Treaty  of  Westphalia,  in  1648.  Enough  to  say  that  all  of  the  more  than 
three  hundred  separate  principalities  and  communities  that  composed  the 
Holy  Roman  Empire  at  the  beginning  of  the  sixteenth  century  were  in 
some  fashion  represented  in  this  body. 

In  a  word,  then,  while  all  the  other  countries  of  Europe  had  arrived  at 
a  fair  state  of  political  order,  the  Empire  was  still  in  the  condition  of 
medieval  anarchy.  Germany  was  one  people;  it  was  not  one  nation. 
The  Diet  was  a  Congress,  rather  than  a  Parliament.  When  after  infinite 
labor  and  prolonged  discussion  a  decision  was  reached,  there  was  no 
adequate  means  of  enforcing  it.  The  so-called  decrees  of  the  body  were 
in  fact  merely  advice,  which  the  various  States  for  the  most  part  contemp- 
tuously disregarded.  The  great  need  was  a  strong  executive.  The  in- 
efficiency of  the  imperial  courts  compelled  the  settlement  of  serious  diffi- 
culties by  an  appeal  to  arms.  It  was  the  constant  complaint  that  Germany 
had  no  peace,  and  that  justice  could  not  be  obtained.  So  far  back  as  the 
day  of  Nicholas  of  Cusa  this  had  been  perceived,  and  that  remarkable 


xxviii  INTRODUCTION 

statesman  suggested  the  sole  remedy:  a  standing  army  was  necessary  for 
the  enforcement  of  judicial  decisions;  and  the  expense  of  such  an  army 
should  be  met  by  a  special  tax  levied  by  the  Diet.  But  to  this  policy  the 
princes  could  not  be  brought  to  consent,  for  it  was  contrary  to  their 
settled  policy  of  weakening  the  imperial  authority  to  strengthen  their 
own.  The  great  ducal  houses  were  willing  to  entrust  the  sword  of  empire 
only  to  hands  too  weak  to  wield  it  effectively,  and  thus  they  not  only 
maintained,  but  continually  increased,  their  own  independence.  There 
was  then  no  single  state,  like  the  Prussia  of  to-day,  so  pre-eminent  in 
power  as  to  constitute  it  the  natural  political  center  of  the  nation,  and 
entitle  its  ruling  house  to  claim  the  dignity  of  hereditary  Emperor.  The 
Duchy  of  Austria,  which  came  nearest  to  this  position,  fell  just  short  of 
the  necessary  pre-eminence,  and  was  not  an  integral  part  of  Germany. 
Hence  the  medieval  Empire  lacked  precisely  what  modern  Germany  has, 
a  strong  central  government.  It  was  a  Staatenbund,  not  a  Bundesstaat, 
and  the  Emperor  possessed  precisely  such  real  power  within  the  limits  of 
the  Empire  as  the  Diet  chose  to  grant  him,  and  no  more. 

This  transformation  of  the  Empire,  from  a  universal  dominion  with  a 
single  head  whose  will  was  the  source  of  law,  into  the  semblance  of  a 
federated  monarchy  of  limited  powers,  but  in  reality  into  an  oligarchy  of 
princes  with  unlimited  powers,  was  greatly  promoted  by  the  introduction 
of  the  Roman  law  and  its  remarkable  extension  during  the  latter  half  of 
the  fifteenth  century.  The  German  law  that  had  prevailed  down  to  that 
age  was  like  the  English  common  law,  an  accretion  of  customs  reaching 
back  to  a  time,  as  Blackstone  says,  "whereof  the  memory  of  man  runneth 
not  to  the  contrary. "  Much  of  it  was  unwritten,  and  still  more  was  un- 
codified.  It  was  favorable  to  individual  liberty  and  communal  rights, 
and  the  princes  found  it  a  serious  obstacle  to  their  policy  of  centralizing 
all  power  in  their  own  hands.  With  a  singular  blindness  to  probable 
results,  the  emperors  did  their  utmost  to  promote  the  introduction  of 
the  Justinian  Code,  possibly  on  the  theory  that  a  Roman  Empire  ought 
to  be  ruled  according  to  Roman  law,  more  likely  because  they  hoped  by 
this  change  to  increase  their  own  prerogatives.  Accordingly,  lawyers 
trained  at  Bologna,  and  other  universities  where  the  Roman  law  was 
taught,  were  appointed  judges  in  the  imperial  courts,  and  they  decided 
causes  according  to  the  principles  and  precedents  of  Roman  law,  not 
German.  The  princes  followed  the  example  thus  set  them,  and  by  the 
sixteenth  century  nearly  the  whole  legal  fraternity  were  partisans  and 
practitioners  of  the  Justinian  Code,  while  the  ancient  German  law  had 
fallen  into  disuse.  The  study  of  Roman  law  was  introduced  into  the  chief 
German  universities,  and  attracted  more  students  than  other  subjects. 
The  Church  was  favorable  to  this  change,  since  the  canon  law  is  largely 


INTRODUCTION  xxix 

derived  from  the  Roman  codes,  and,  on  the  whole,  the  change  promised 
to  promote  the  interests  of  ecclesiastics. 

Unspeakable  confusion  attended  this  new  order  of  things  in  every  rank 

of  society.  No  man  longer  knew  what  his  rights  were.  The  rules  for  the 
tenure  of  property,  for  inheritance,  for  alienation,  were  entirely  different 
under  Roman  law  from  those  to  which  Germans  had  become  accustomed 
by  ages  of  undisputed  usage.  In  particular,  leases  heretofore  held  in 
perpetuity  were  now  transformed  into  leases  for  limited  terms.  Feudal 
rents  in  kind  were  altered  to  money  rents,  and  in  the  process  they  were 
nearly  always  much  increased.  Lawsuits  innumerable  followed,  the  courts 
were  choked  with  business,  lawyers  and  notaries  were  busy  as  bees  and 
fairly  coined  money— only  the  unfortunate  litigants  suffered,  and  few 
pitied  them.  In  vain  did  the  people  protest  against  the  unlawful  exactions 
to  which  they  were  subjected,  and  the  lawyers  and  court  officers  who 
preyed  upon  them.  Sebastian  Brant,  in  his  famous  satire  "The  Ship  of 
Fools,"  printed  in  1494,  thus  castigates  the  greedy  lawyers  of  his  day, 
comparing  them  to  the  robber  knights:  "The  one  steals  in  secret,  the  other 
openly;  the  one  exposes  his  body  to  the  storm,  the  other  hides  behind  his 
inkstand.  The  knight  burns  all  before  him;  the  lawyer  finds  a  well-to-do 
peasant,  and  with  legal  documents  roasts  him.  .  .  .  They  corrupt  the  law 
to  make  a  living."  A  sermon  of  the  period  contains  these  bitter  words: 
"When  I  warn  you  to  beware  of  usurers  and  those  who  would  plunder 
you,  I  warn  you  also  to  beware  of  advocates,  who  now  prevail.  For  the 
last  twenty  or  thirty  years  they  have  increased  like  poisonous  weeds,  and 
are  worse  than  the  usurers,  for  they  take  away  not  only  your  money  but 
your  rights  and  honor.  They  have  substituted  a  foreign  code  for  the 
national  one,  and  questions  that  used  to  be  settled  in  two  or  three  days 
now  take  as  many  months  and  years.  What  a  pity  the  people  cannot  get 
justice  as  they  did  before  they  knew  these  liars  and  deceivers  whom  no 
one  wanted. " 

The  social  importance  of  this  great  change  can  hardly  be  overestimated, 
but  a  political  result  quite  unexpected  came  from  it  also ;  while  all  classes 
hoped  for  advantage  from  the  introduction  of  the  Roman  law,  the  only 
class  that  did  obtain  any  real  advantage  was  the  princes.  On  the 
whole,  ecclesiastical  authority  was  weakened  by  this  new  order  of 
things,  but  the  ruin  of  the  imperial  authority  was  made  complete  and 
irremediable.  The  princes,  with  much  persistence  and  shrewdness,  used 
the  new  law,  in  conjunction  with  the  complete  judicial  rights  granted 
them  by  the  Golden  Bull,  to  reduce  the  functions  of  the  imperial  courts 
to  the  lowest  possible  limit.  Their  own  power  was  vastly  increased  and 
consolidated,  and  both  Emperor  and  Church  suffered  a  proportional 
weakening  of  their  sovereignty. 


xxx  INTRODUCTION 

III 

THE  migrations  of  the  Teutons  resulted  in  a  selection  of  the  courageous, 
enterprising  elements  of  the  original  stock  to  propagate  their  kind;  and 
also  necessitated  constant  fighting  with  opposing  peoples,  which  bred  a 
habit  of  violence  and  aggression.  The  Teuton  became  proud,  self- 
reliant,  individualistic.  He  became  a  social  being  through  his  intelligence 
rather  than  through  his  emotions.  He  saw  the  advantages  of  good  order, 
rather  than  instinctively  rejoiced  in  the  fellowship  of  his  kind.  Society 
and  social  institutions  were  less  necessary  to  him  than  useful.  His  en- 
vironment— struggle  with  a  stern  climate,  habits  of  drink,  diseases  to 
which  he  was  subject — made  another  selection:  the  temperate  and  frugal 
survived  the  reckless  and  drunken.  -A  strong,  sober  race,  that,  by  virtue 
of  mental  and  physical  characteristics,  took  a  foremost  place  in  the 
development  of  Europe,  were  the  people  among  whom  the  Reformation 
began. 

Germany  was  naturally  a  poor  land,  but  in  the  sixteenth  century  it 
had  become  relatively  rich;  indeed,  its  wealth  placed  it  in  the  foremost 
rank  of  European  countries.  Its  agricultural  resources  were  great; 
its  manufactures  were  varied  in  character  and  in  volume  large;  its 
commerce  was  vast,  profitable  and  rapidly  increasing.  The  richest 
mines  in  Europe  at  this  time  were  in  Saxony,  in  Freiberg,  Marienberg, 
Schreckenstein,  Schneeberg,  Annaberg.  The  most  important  mine  in 
Thuringia  was  at  Mansfeld.  These  mines  yielded  principally  silver  and 
copper,  with  some  gold.  The  ores  were  often  sent  to  Venice  to  be 
reduced,  and  the  product  was  exchanged  for  merchandise  imported 
from  the  East.  Erfurt,  Leipzig,  Niirnberg  and  Augsburg  especially 
profited  by  the  traffic  thus  built  up.  The  mining  districts  produced 
little  save  their  metals;  their  food  and  clothing  must  all  be  imported, 
besides  much  wood  for  smelting,  propping  up  the  mines,  and  the  like. 
The  Saxon  princes  drew  so  large  revenues  from  these  mines  that  they 
were  able  to  tax  their  subjects  more  lightly  than  many  other  rulers,  and 
in  consequence  the  population  and  wealth  of  Saxony  gained  at  the  expense 
of  other  parts  of  the  Empire.  It  was  not  merely  accident  that  caused 
the  Reformation  to  begin  in  Saxony,  and  spread  thence  through  Germany. 

Until  late  in  the  fifteenth  century,  German  social  institutions  were  yet 
in  the  main  feudal.  There  were  still  three  chief  classes  among  the  people: 
the  clergy,  the  nobles  and  the  peasants.  The  legal  basis  of  society  re- 
mained in  the  land,  and  a  man's  social  status  was  determined  by  the  tenure 
on  which  he  occupied  his  portion  of  land.  No  way  of  living  having  been 
yet  discovered  except  by  occupying  land,  the  law  of  tenure  necessarily 
fixed  every  man's  legal  and  economic  rights.  The  cities,  to  be  sure,  with 


INTRODUCTION  xxxi 

their  burgher  guilds,  were  an  exception;  they  were  making  another  class, 
as  yet  with  imperfect  recognition  and  with  rights  in  many  respects  ill- 
defined. 

But  land  had  nevertheless  ceased  to  be  the  only  basis  of  wealth;  it  was 
no  longer  even  the  principal  basis  of  wealth.  The  ultimate  source  of 
production  it,  of  course,  was  then  and  must  always  be,  but  manufactures 
and  commerce  had  so  advanced  that  land  had  ceased  to  be  the  economic 
basis  of  society.  A  vast  economic  change  was  in  progress;  Europe  was 
undergoing  a  transformation  from  the  agricultural  to  the  capitalistic 
system,  and  this  great  economic  mutation  was  producing  a  portentous 
social  fermentation.  The  sixteenth  century  was  the  culmination  of  a 
process  of  economic  readjustment  that  had  begun  two  centuries  before, 
and  has  continued  by  fresh  stages  to  our  own  day.  That  age  witnessed 
the  breaking  up  of  feudalism  and  the  reconstitution  of  society  on  a  dif- 
ferent basis.  Commerce  became  capitalized,  and  to  some  extent  man- 
ufactures also;  though  the  complete  capitalization  of  industry  remained 
to  be  completed  after  the  invention  of  machinery  at  the  close  of  the 
eighteenth  century.  The  Reformation  occurred  in  the  midst  of  this 
beginning  of  modern  capitalism.  Large  fortunes  were  already  amassed 
or  in  process  of  amassing  by  individuals,  by  families,  and  by  companies 
formed  for  trade — those  first  attempts  at  combinations  of  capital  on  a 
large  scale  that  gradually  led  to  the  modern  corporation  and  the  Trust. 
This  growth  of  the  artisan  and  merchant  class  in  numbers  and  wealth 
had  a  great  effect  on  all  the  social  and  political  institutions  of  Europe, 
an  effect  especially  marked  in  Germany  by  the  rapid  development  of  the 
free  imperial  cities. 

The  city  was  the  new  economic  unit  of  the  changed  social  conditions, 
and  economically  considered,  Europe  was  coming  to  consist  of  a  system 
of  city  States.  Within  the  cities  the  chief  instrument  by  which  this  new 
order  was  developing  was  the  guild,  which  was  to  the  medieval  artisan  or 
merchant  all  that  the  trades  union  is  to-day,  and  much  mora.  Many  of 
the  guilds  had  features  that  allied  them  to  the  modern  Masonic  order 
and  all  corresponded  closely  in  some  of  their  activities  to  the  numerous 
benevolent  orders  that  have  sprung  up  in  the  United  States  and  flourished 
like  Jonah's  gourd  in  the  last  half  century.  /The  guild  not  only  existed 
for  the  mutual  protection  and  advancement  of  the  members  of  a  craft, 
but  from  a  common  fund  help  was  given  to  needy  members  in  sickness  or 
temporary  loss  of  employment.  As  these  guilds  increased  in  numbers 
and  wealth,  they  naturally  sought  a  share  in  the  government  of  their 
town.)  In  some  of  the  cities,  like  Ulm,  Frankfurt  and  Niirnberg,  the  con- 
trolling interest  remained  aristocratic,  and  the  patricians  took  precedence  /> 
of  the  burghers,  but  the  latter  were  able  to  make  good  their  claim  to  a 


xxxii  INTRODUCTION 

share  of  the  power,  and  the  original  rule  that  only  members  of  the  oldest 
families  were  eligible  to  the  Rath,  or  town  council,  had  to  be  modified. 
'    In  most  of  the  towns,  the  guilds  were  the  ruling  powers,  the  council  being 
composed  of  the  guild  masters,  or  the  heads  of  the  various  organized  crafts,/ 

It  became  absolutely  necessary  for  the  security  of  a  town  and  its  busi- 
ness that  it  should  have  a  charter,  vesting  in  it  certain  rights  and  privi- 
leges, and  clearly  specifying  the  duties  to  be  performed  by  it.  Gradually 
there  developed  a  class  of  free  cities,  owing  allegiance  directly  to  the 
Emperor,  and  by  him  being  assured  of  freedom  from  oppression  by  princes 
and  great  nobles.  These  cities  had  come  to  be  very  numerous  in  Germany, 
and  constituted  practically  independent  republics,  so  far  at  least  as  their 
own  internal  affairs  were  concerned.  In  the  Rhine  and  Swabian  district 
there  were  over  a  hundred  of  these  cities,  among  which  were:  Aachen, 
Speyer,  Worms,  Frankfurt,  Strassburg,  Colmar,  Basel,  Bern,  Zurich, 
Schaffhausen,  Constance,  St.  Gall,  Ueberlingen,  Ravensberg,  Kempten, 
Kaufbeuren,  Donauworth,  Boffingen,  Memmingen,  Augsburg,  Ulm, 
Tottweil,  Reutligen,  Weil,  Esslingen,  Heilbronn,  Wimpfen,  Halle,  Nord- 
lingen.  Franconia  had  only  half  a  dozen,  of  which  Niirnberg  was  the  chief. 
In  Bavaria  the  one  city  of  Regensburg  stood  practically  alone,  save  for 
Augsburg.  In  Saxony  were  Liibeck,  Bremen,  Magdeburg,  Hamburg 
and  Gosler.  In  Thuringia  were  found  Erfurt,  Miihlhausen,  Nordhausen. 
In  Westphalia  were  Hildesheim,  Minden,  Osnabriick,  Miinster  and 
Diisseldorf .  And  alongside  of  these  free  cities  were  ^^considerable  number 
that  were  nominally  ruled  by  a  bishop  or  archbishop,  but  nevertheless 
enjoyed  a  practical  independence;  not  to  mention  a  third  class  of  cities, 
like  Dresden  and  Leipzig,  where  the  court  of  a  prince  was  maintained, 
which  nevertheless  had  to  a  considerable  extent  the  same  internal  govern- 
ment and  similar  civic  privileges.  Holding  directly  of  the  Emperor,  the 
free  cities  were  far  more  loyal  to  him  than  the  princes,  and  did  much  to 
keep  the  imperial  spirit  alive. 

The  volume  of  German  commerce  controlled  by  these  towns,  at  the 
beginning  of  the  sixteenth  century,  would  seem  quite  respectable  even 
in  these  days  of  great  enterprises.  Ulm,  according  to  Wimpheling,  esti- 
mated its  annual  trade  at  over  half  a  million  florins,  while  that  of  Augs- 
burg and  Ntirnberg  was  much  greater.  The  most  important  commercial 
route  was  by  way  of  Venice,  Augsburg  or  Niirnberg,  Strassburg  and 
Cologne.  These  and  other  German  towns  were  also  the  centers  of  impor- 
tant manufactures,  and  their  products  went  to  swell  the  volume  of  this 
trade.  In  1466  there  were  743  master-weavers  in  Augsburg;  and  at 
about  the  same  time,  200,000  bolts  of  linen  were  woven  in  a  single  year 
at  Ulm.  Tanners,  furriers  and  shoemakers  were  also  flourishing  guilds, 
and  their  products  were  famous  throughout  Europe.  Iron  and  metal 


INTRODUCTION  xxxiii 

workers  are  found  in  these  and  other  towns  hi  greatest  profusion, 
and  the  variety  of  product  in  these  lines  is  hardly  greater  to-day  than  it 
was  then. 

At  the  same  time  another  influence  was  at  work  that  was  greatly  to 
change  the  relative  importance  of  this  commercial  route,  and  seriously 
affect  the  cities  that  shared  in  such  prosperity.  The  search^  for  new 
routes  to  India  that  led  Columbus  to  the  discovery  of  the  New  World 
was  caused  by  the  advance  westward  of  the  Turks,  and  their  interference 
with  the  old  paths  of  commerce  with  the  East.  By  the  discoveries  that  j 
followed,  and  the  accompanying  development  of  the  art  of  navigation,  j  %/ 
the  commercial  center  of  Europe  was  transferred  from  Italy  to  the 
Atlantic  coast,  and  Spain  and  France,  and  in  still  greater  measure  the 
Netherlands  and  England,  profited  by  this  change.  This  was  in  itself  a 
great  economic  revolution,  and  its  effects  on  the  progress  of  the  Reforma- 
tion are  almost  incalculable. 

But  in  the  sixteenth  century,  the  effects  of  this  change  were  only  be- 
ginning to  be  felt,  and  the  German  cities  were  still  among  the  most 
famous  in  Europe.  Niirnberg  was  not  only  a  center  of  humanistic  culture,  >/ 
but  as  the  home  of  art  it  vied  with  Florence,  as  a  mart  of  trade  with 
Venice.  Augsburg  was  as  much  the  center  of  European  finance  as  London 
is  to-day,  though  its  banking  houses  and  capital  were  later  to  be  trans- 
ferred to  Antwerp,  and  the  Fuggers  of  Augsburg  were  the  sixteenth- 
century  Rothschilds.  This  strong  house,  which  had  come  up  from  the 
humblest  beginnings  until  it  ranked  with  the  high  nobles  of  the  Em- 
pire, financed  emperors,  princes  and  prelates,  and  held  in  its  hands  the 
issues  of  peace  and  war,  as  the  great  bankers  of  Europe  do  to-day.  It 
was  certain  that  these  free  towns  would  play  a  large  part  in  the  Reforma- 
tion drama,  and  we  shall  see  that  they  ultimately  decided  its  course.  It 
would  be  quite  within  the  truth  to  say  that  the  success  of  any  attempt 
at  reform  in  the  Empire  would  depend  on  their  attitude  toward  it. 

On  every  hand  we  find  in  the  medieval  literature  tributes  to  the  wealth 
and  luxury  that  Germany  was  attaining  through  this  growth  of  capitalism 
and  the  development  of  her  free  cities.  ^Eneas  Sylvius  (afterwards  Pope 
Pius  II)  about  the  middle  of  the  fifteenth  century  was  much  struck  by 
this  condition  of  Germany,  so  far  surpassing  the  state  of  Italy:  "The 
German  nation  takes  the  lead  of  all  in  wealth  and  power,  and  one  can  say 
with  truth  that  God  has  favored  this  land  beyond  others.  On  all  sides 
one  sees  cultivated  plains,  cornfields,  vineyards,  flower  and  vegetable 
gardens  in  town  and  country;  everywhere  grand  buildings,  walled  cities, 
well-to-do  farmsteads  in  the  plains  and  valleys,  castles  on  the  mountain 
heights."  Elsewhere  he  comes  down  to  particulars  after  this  fashion: 
"How  is  it  that  in  your  inns  you  always  serve  drinks  in  silver  vessels? 


xxxiv  INTRODUCTION 

Where  is  the  woman  (I  do  not  speak  of  the  nobility,  but  of  the  bourgeoisie) 
who  does  not  glitter  with  gold?  What  profusion  of  gold  and  pearls, 
ornaments,  reliquaries!"  Even  natives  were  sufficiently  impressed 
by  the  luxury  of  their  country  to  record  it.  Wimpheling  writes:  "It  was 
not  an  uncommon  thing  to  eat  off  gold  and  silver  plates  at  the  merchants' 
tables,  as  I  myself  did  in  company  with  eleven  other  guests  in  the  city 
of  Cologne." 

A  not  too  vividly  imaginative  reader  easily  perceives  the  ill-concealed 
tone  of  envy  that  breathes  through  such  testimonies  to  the  wealth  of  the 
German  burgher  class.  Trade  was  held  in  low  esteem,  not  merely  by  the 
nobility,  but  by  the  Church  and  the  educated  class.  It  was  rated  lower 
than  agriculture  and  the  handicrafts  by  those  who  despised  all  alike,  on 
the  ground  that  merchants  were  less  honest  than  farmers  or  artisans. 
The  merchant  guilds  were  denouncd  much  as  the  trusts  are  to-day. 
The  Diet  of  Cologne,  in  1572,  passed  an  edict  against  them,  in  effect 
anticipating  the  Sherman  law  of  our  day,  in  a  like  vain  hope  of  resisting 
an  economic  evolution.  It  was  a  fact  that  the  burghers  and  their  trade 
flatly  antagonized  much  of  the  medieval  ethics,  and  this  explains  the 
opposition  to  them.  To  buy  in  the  cheapest  market  and  sell  in  the  dear- 
est, and  to  tax  the  traffic  all  it  will  bear,  would  have  been  maxims  ab- 
horrent to  the  fifteenth  and  sixteenth  centuries,  although  the  commerce 
of  the  age  was  founded  on  these  as  yet  unformulated  principles.  The 
religious  and  ethical  teaching  of  that  time  insisted  that  to  take  advantage 
of  the  necessity  of  a  fellow  creature,  whether  done  by  buyer  or  seller,  was 
contrary  to  justice,  and  such  procedure  was  forbidden  under  severe 
penalties.  This  was  especially  true  of  food  and  clothing,  and  the  neces- 
saries of  life  generally,  which  all  but  merchants  believed  should  be  sold 
for  "fair"  prices.  The  merchant  believed,  and  so  far  as  the  laws  would 
permit  practiced,  that  he  should  receive  for  his  goods  whatever  he  could 
get  for  them.  It  is  the  constant  complaint  in  the  literature  of  the  time 
that  the  suimotuary  laws  had  broken  down  and  no  longer  could  be  en- 
forced, or  at  least  that  they  no  longer  were  enforced,  that  greed  was 
everywhere  triumphing  over  justice,  that  the  poor  were  being  exploited 
to  make  the  merchant  class  rich. 

Erasmus  therefore  represented  the  general  opinion  of  the  mercantile 
class  when  he  said:  "Merchants  are  the  vilest  and  most  contemptible  of 
men;  they  carry  on  the  most  despicable  of  all  industries,  and  that  moreover 
in  the  meanest  fashion;  and  though  they  lie,  perjure  themselves,  steal, 
cheat,  and  in  every  way  impose  on  others,  they  set  themselves  up  every- 
where as  the  first  of  the  land — which,  indeed,  their  wealth  enables  them  to 
do.  A  merchant  would  not  succeed  in  growing  very  rich  if  he  applied  his 
conscience  to  the  question  of  usury  and  rascality."  The  real  offense  of 


INTRODUCTION  xxxv 

the  merchant  appears  to  have  been  that  he  was  rich,  while  the  noble  and 
the  scholar  only  wished  to  be  rich. 

But  it  was  not  merely  as  merchants  that  the  burghers  were  hated  and 
denounced;  it  was  as  bankers  and  lenders  of  money,  as  the  capitalistic 
class  of  Germany.  Wimpheling  bewails  the  growth  of  capitalism  in  his 
day:  "Usury  is  cruel  and  much  practiced  by  the  Jews,  as  well  as  by  many 
Christians,  who  are  worse  than  the  Jews.  It  is  impossible  to  dispense 
with  the  exchange  of  money,  and  the  lender  has  the  right  to  some  profit, 
but  usury  and  money-lending  are  the  ruin  of  a  nation.  Woe  the  day  when 
the  reins  fell  into  the  hands  of  wealth,  and  gold  began  to  beget  ever  more 
and  more  gold."  We  must  bear  in  mind,  in  reading  such  words,  that 
during  this  period  "usury"  means,  not  the  taking  of  excessive  interest 
alone,  but  the  taking  of  any  interest.  That  there  was  good  ground  for 
opposition  to  excessive  interest  is  apparent  when  we  read  that  the  muni- 
cipality of  Frankfurt  once  paid  52  per  cent,  for  a  loan  of  a  thousand 
florins;  and  that  interest  at  times  went  as  high  as  86  per  cent,  at  Augsburg. 

In  spite  of  such  social  prejudice  the  process  of  accumulating  capital 
went  on  with  great  rapidity  in  the  sixteenth  century.  The  people  were 
slow  to  perceive  that  conditions  had  changed,  and  that  money  had  ac- 
quired a  new  social  significance  and  so  a  revision  of  ethical  standards 
was  required.  Lending  before  the  sixteenth  century  had  been  mainly  for 
unproductive  consumption,  for  war  and  for  extravagant  expense.  Lend- 
ing was  now  for  use  of  money  in  business,  with  a  prospect,  almost  a 
certainty,  of  profit.  Usury  had  formerly  been  an  exaction  of  that  for 
which  the  borrower  had  received  no  real  equivalent,  from  which  at  any 
rate  he  had  derived  no  profit;  it  was  now  a  sharing  of  profits  between 
borrower  and  lender.  As  money  borrowed  was  seen  to  be  productive,  to 
return  a  profit  to  the  borrower,  the  prejudice  against  interest  gradually 
disappeared,  yet  throughout  the  sixteenth  century  men  continued  to 
apply  the  ethical  principles  of  a  former  age  to  the  new  conditions  that 
they  no  longer  fitted. 

The  Church  fully  sustained  the  nobles  and  scholars  in  their  opposition 
to  the  growing  money-lending  power.  The  canon  law  forbade  all  usury, 
and  for  ages  the  civil  law  enforced  the  ecclesiastical.  But  the  increasing 
demands  of  capital  for  commerce  broke  down  the  civil  prohibitions,  which 
were  becoming  obsolete.  The  law  could  annoy  the  merchant,  but  it 
could  no  longer  bind  him.  The  Church,  however,  continued  to  denounce 
usury  and  to  refuse  absolution  to  those  guilty  of  it,  and  here  we  find  one 
of  the  prime  causes  of  the  growing  hostility  between  the  cities  with  their 
mercantile  classes  and  the  Church.  The  Church  also  favored  the  sump- 
tuary laws,  by  which  it  had  been  attempted  to  regulate  extravagance  and 
to  prevent  oppression,  through  statutes  that  prescribed  what  might  be 


xxxvi  INTRODUCTION 

bought  and  consumed  by  various  classes  and  the  prices  at  which  articles 
might  be  sold.  As  this  legislation  tended  to  restrict  trade,  it  was  hated 
by  the  traders. 

The  cities  had  therefore  a  powerful  motive  to  revolt  against  a  Church 
that  was  so  hampering  their  growth.  But  this  was  not  their  whole  griev- 
ance. The  Church  was  the  passive  foe,  as  well  as  the  active,  of  commerce 
in  the  sixteenth  century.  It  had  locked  up  in  its  great  landed  estates  and 
vast  buildings  an  immense  amount  of 'capital  that  was  sorely  needed  in  a 
more  liquid  form  for  the  enlargement  of  commercial  enterprises.  Com- 
merce was  beginning  to  feel  the  absolute  necessity  of  large  capital  and  of 
credit.  The  Church  took  from  the  people,  every  year  and  in  various  ways, 
more  than  all  the  governments  of  Europe;  and  what  it  thus  gained  was 
to  a  large  degree  a  permanent  loss,  because  it  was  invested  in  compara- 
tively nonproductive  property.  By  thus  diminishing  capital  and  oppos- 
ing credit  the  Church  was  the  chief  obstacle  in  the  way  of  the  commercial 
and  capitalistic  evolution  that  was  so  rapidly  progressing.  This  economic 
stimulus  to  revolt  was  none  the  less  powerful  from  the  circumstance  that 
the  cities  were  not  conscious  of  its  effect;  they  struck  out  blindly  against 
what  they  felt,  rather  than  knew,  to  be  their  chief  antagonist,  when  the 
time  came  that  a  successful  blow  could  be  struck. 

It  was  natural  that  the  cities  should  seek  recognition  in  the  political 
affairs  of  the  Empire  in  some  way  proportioned  to  their  social  power  of 
wealth.  In  this  their  success  was  not  at  first  striking.  The  Golden  Bull 
forbade  the  formation  of  confederacies  within  the  Empire,  without  the 
consent  of  the  Emperor  and  princes,  nevertheless  a  league  of  the  Swabian 
towns1  was  concluded  in  1376  to  resist  the  encroachments  of  Charles  IV. 
An  association  of  nobles  was  formed  the  same  year,  and  in  the  struggle 
that  followed  the  towns  were  badly  worsted  (1388)  and  lost  some  part  of 
their  privileges,  which  they  were  slow  in  recovering.  The  cities  gradually 
obtained  representation  in  the  Reichstag,  as  we  have  seen,  but  beyond 
control  of  their  own  taxation  they  had  little  weight  in  that  body.  At  the 
Diet  of  Niirnberg,  in  1522,  they  protested  that  they  had  no  real  voice  in 
affairs,  since  they  were  always  overruled  by  the  other  orders,  but  the 
satisfaction  of  protesting  was  practically  all  that  they  gained.  That  they 
were  already  the  superior  force  in  the  Empire,  by  virtue  of  their  wealth, 
was  doubtless  the  fact,  but  the  extreme  conservatism  of  Germany  post- 
poned political  recognition  of  this  fact.  This  dissatisfaction  of  the  cities 
with  their  political  status  was  one  of  the  most  serious  elements  in  the 
general  condition  of  unrest  that  we  discover  at  the  beginning  of  the  six- 
teenth century. 

1  This  should  not  be  confused  with  either  of  the  several  later  associations  bear- 
ing the  same  name,  especially  the  great  Swabian  league,  formed  in  1488  at  Ess- 
iingen,  by  princes,  nobles  and  towns,  for  the  enforcement  of  peace  and  good  order. 


INTRODUCTION  xxxvii 

A  class  very  seriously  affected  by  the  new  social  conditions  were  the 
knights,  or  lesser  nobility.  Holding  their  fiefs  directly  of  the  Emperor, 
these  descendants  of  the  officers  in  the  early  imperial  armies  of  Charle- 
magne and  his  successors  were  always  a  turbulent  lot.  They  were  at 
constant  feud  among  themselves  and  with  the  cities.  They  made  continual 
war  on  each  other  for  the  sake  of  revenge,  and  they  warred  against  the 
towns  for  the  sake  of  plunder.  The  towns,  on  their  part,  punished  the 
marauders  as  they  could,  and  often  hanged  them  incontinently  when 
caught.  The  first  Reichstag  of  Maximilian's  reign  attempted  to  abate 
these  evils  by  sanctioning  an  imperial  edict  (1495)  that  forbade  private 
war,  which  was  little  else  than  piracy  on  land,  but  the  edict  had  slight 
effect.  Nearly  another  century  was  required  to  make  the  prohibition 
operative,  and  in  the  meantime  the  knights  had  virtually  perished.  At 
the  beginning  of  the  Reformation  private  war,  though  illegal,  flourished 
throughout  the  Empire. 

The  poverty  of  the  knights  intensified  this  struggle,  and  by  the  year 
1500  it  was  a  poverty  keenly  felt  by  the  larger  part  of  the  order.  The 
class  that  had  risen  by  success  in  war  found  themselves  out  of  joint  with 
a  social  order  based  on  wealth  and  demanding  peace  as  the  prime  condi- 
tion of  its  well-being.  The  claims  of  long  descent  were  more  and  more 
disallowed;  men  were  beginning  to  ask  what  the  knight  was  doing  for  the 
society  from  which  he  demanded  so  much.  Money  was  coming  to  be  the 
measure  of  value.  The  old  feudal  society  had  little  need  of  money.  Rents 
and  taxes  were  paid  in  kind,  and  for  the  rest  barter  served;  but  a  crafts- 
man must  be  paid  in  good  hard  coin  or  he  would  not  work;  a  merchant 
must  have  money  counted  down,  or  he  would  not  part  with  his  wares. 
The  need  of  money  was  therefore  increasingly  felt  by  all  classes  in  the  six- 
teenth century,  but  more  especially  by  the  landed  aristocracy,  which  had 
hitherto  been  able  to  supply  their  wants  from  their  own  estates.  To  this 
social  change  the  knight  was  fiercely  opposed.  As  compared  with  any 
other  class  he  desired  at  least 

to  be  deemed 

Equal  in  strength,  and  rather  than  be  less 
Cared  not  to  be  at  all. 

Also  the  growth  of  wealth  and  luxury  hi  the  towns  had  developed  new 
wants  among  the  nobility,  which  the  wealthier  among  them  were  able  to 
gratify,  while  the  poorer  struggled  desperately  to  do  the  same.  The 
knights,  living  in  castles  whose  construction  had  sacrificed  everything 
else  to  security,  lacking  most  of  what  we  should  consider  the  ordinary 
comforts  and  decencies  of  life,  saw  the  burghers  living  in  houses  that  were 
in  comparison  sybaritic,  resplendent  in  luxury  and  crowded  with  costly 
works  of  art.  The  knight's  wife  and  daughters  saw  the  womenfolk  of  the 


xxxviii  INTRODUCTION 

burghers  flaunting  silks  and  velvets  and  jewels  fit  for  princesses  and 
coveted  the  like  for  themselves.  It  is  true  that  medieval  sumptuary  laws 
forbade  burghers  to  wear  pearls  and  velvet,  these  being  reserved  for 
ladies  of  noble  birth,  but  the  prohibitions  were  often  disregarded.  And 
even  when  the  laws  were  obeyed,  the  wives  and  daughters  of  burghers 
could  wear  silks  and  diamonds,  while  the  noble  lady  but  too  often  had  to  go 
without  her  pearls  and  velvet  for  lack  of  money  to  buy  them.  It  is  scarcely 
wonderful  that  neither  was  fully  satisfied.  The  burgher's  womenfolk 
resented  being  deprived  of  ornaments  that  they  could  well  afford,  while 
noble  ladies  felt  even  more  keenly  their  deprivation  of  that  which  they 
could  not  afford,  but  had  been  taught  to  consider  their  birthright.  The 
attempt  of  the  knight  to  rival  the  burgher  in  this  luxurious  splendor 
within  and  this  sumptuous  display  without — attempts  all  the  more  eager 
and  determined,  because  the  knight  looked  on  the  burgher  as  his  inferior 
and  tried  to  despise  one  whom  in  his  heart  he  envied — only  led  to  more 
speedy  and  hopeless  impoverishment  and  made  impending  ruin  a 
certainty. 

To  raise  money  for  these  extravagances,  many  knights  mortgaged  their 
estates  to  the  money-lending  syndicates  of  the  towns,  which  had  become 
numerous  and  powerful,  or  to  Jewish  usurers.  Of  course  the  debts  were 
never  paid,  and  when  the  creditor  foreclosed,  as  he  was  usually  compelled 
to  do  in  order  to  recover  his  loan,  instead  of  blaming  their  own  reckless 
improvidence  and  rash  extravagance,  the  unfortunates  complained  bitterly 
of  the  hard-hearted  wretches  who  presumed  to  insist  that  a  noble  should 
pay  his  debts  like  another.  The  very  laws  conspired  to  bring  the  lesser 
nobility  to  want.  For,  while  Germany  had  its  law  of  primogeniture,  like 
other  European  nobilities,  it  was  much  less  strict.  All  of  a  noble's  chil- 
dren were  noble,  and  his  estates  were  not  entailed;  so  that  the  constant 
multiplication  of  titles  and  the  subdivision  of  territories  and  estates,  by 
equal  division  among  sons  and  to  make  marriage  portions  for  daugh- 
ters, reduced  all  but  a  few  great  houses  to  comparative  poverty  and 
impotence. 

At  the  same  time  that  the  knights  were  thus  doing  their  best  to  accom- 
plish their  own  downfall,  there  befel  them  a  misfortune  that  they  could 
have  done  nothing  either  to  foresee  or  avert.  This  was  a  military  revolu- 
tion, a  radical  change  in  the  art  of  war  consequent  on  the  invention  of 
gunpowder.  Before  the  musket,  the  knight's  armor  of  steel  proved  as 
worthless  for  defense  as  his  lance  and  two-handed  sword  were  for  offense ; 
and  the  cannon  battered  down  about  his  ears  his  hitherto  impregnable 
castles,  which  before  this  new  weapon  were  no  better  than  cardboard 
houses.  The  social  position  and  political  weight  of  the  knights  had  been 
won  and  maintained  by  their  military  prowess;  throughout  the  middle 


INTRODUCTION  xxxix 

ages  the  strength  of  armies  had  depended  on  the  cavalry,1  the  body 
of  knights  panoplied  in  steel  and  invulnerable  to  the  weapons  of  the 
foot  soldier.  This  invincible  cavalry  was  now  being  replaced  on  the 
field  by  infantry,  composed  of  burghers  and  peasants,  thoroughly 
trained  and  disciplined.  The  feudal  militia  was  giving  place  to  standing 
armies,  largely  composed  of  mercenaries,  officered  by  soldiers  of  fortune — 
rascally  swashbucklers  and  cutpurses,  most  of  them,  but  stout  fighters. 
War  was  becoming  a  profession,  not  the  occupation  of  a  gentleman  in  his 
leisure  hours.  The  robber  knight,  perched  in  his  inaccessible  rocky  eyrie, 
levying  tribute  on  all  who  traveled  the  roads,  waging  private  warfare  at 
his  will,  and  bidding  the  whole  world  defiance,  was  an  anachronism.  He 
was  dead,  in  fact,  though  not  yet  conscious  of  it,  and  his  burial  had  become 
a  social  necessity.  Lowell  had  the  right  idea  when  he  said, 

But  civlyzation  doos  git  forrid 
Sometimes  upon  a  powder-cart. 

But  probably  the  greatest  sufferers  of  all  from  the  social  revolution 
were  the  peasants.  Up  to  the  middle  of  the  fifteenth  century  their  lot  had 
been  by  no  means  a  hard  one.  Considerable  land  was  then  in  the  hands 
of  peasant  proprietors,  and  lay  between  the  estates  of  the  nobles.  In 
addition  to  these  freehold  properties,  many  peasants  held  land  on  what 
was  virtually  a  perpetual  lease,  the  right  descending  from  father  to  eldest 
son  as  regularly  as  the  inheritance  of  a  noble.  The  Church  had  also  sub- 
let its  land  to  peasants.  Many  peasants  were,  it  is  true,  still  adscripti 
glebes,  that  is,  they  could  not  leave  their  holdings  without  the  consent  of 
their  lords,  but  they  were  free  in  person  and  their  children  were  free. 
Peasants  who  had  no  holdings  of  their  own  were  obliged  to  labor  for  others 
for  stated  wages,  or  else  seek  some  other  means  of  livelihood.  The 
burghers,  especially  the  craftsmen,  were  mainly  recruited  from  the  brighter 
and  more  enterprising  sons  of  peasants.  Sometimes  the  nobles  attempted 
to  prevent  this  drifting  of  the  surplus  rural  population  to  the  cities,  but 
with  little  success. 

The  peasant  paid  his  rents  in  kind.  As  grain  was  the  most  important 
product,  the  lord  was  entitled  to  every  third  sheaf.  The  principle  appears 
to  have  been  that  one  sheaf  was  reckoned  as  the  cost  of  production,  and 
the  surplus  was  equally  shared  between  lord  and  farmer.  A  share  less 
accurately  defined  was  due  to  the  lord  from  the  increase  of  the  flocks, 
herds  and  poultry.  A  "death-tax "  of  the  best  head  or  chattel  was  exacted. 
Personal  service  to  the  lordj  was  also  required,  but  it  was  exactly  limited, 
and  seldom  exceed&I*twelve  days'  labor  in  the  year.  On  the  whole, 

1  The  one  exception  was  the  English  army.  The  battles  of  Grecy  and  Agin- 
court  were  won  by  the  archers,  who  with  their  cloth-yard  shafts  were  not  less 
effective  against  armored  knights  than  was  the  early  musketry. 


xl  INTRODUCTION 

therefore,  the  peasant  was  little  worse  off,  if  any,  than  the  ordinary 
tenant-farmer  without  capital  among  us,  who  takes  a  farm  and  works  it 
"  on  shares. " 

Besides  their  holdings,  there  were  certain  tracts  of  land,  the  Marks  or 
commons,  in  which  the  peasant  had  his  equitable  rights.  He  could  cut 
wood  and  graze  his  cattle  there.  His  swine  could  be  turned  in  to  eat  the 
falling  acorns.  These  commons  had  come  down  from  the  ancient  tribal 
days  in  Germany,  when  all  land  was  held  in  common,  and  these  rights 
were  jealously  defended  and  highly  prized.  In  some  cases,  a  small  rental 
had  to  be  paid  for  them,  but  they  were  never  denied. 

The  German  peasantry  had  some  pretensions  to  scientific  agriculture, 
and  practiced  rotation  of  crops.  Large  parts  of  the  land  were  devoted  to 
the  culture  of  the  vine,  and  the  wines  of  Germany  were  renowned  and 
much  sought  after.  So  were  its  fruits,  especially  cherries  and  apples,  which 
were  grown  in  large  quantities  and  are  often  mentioned  in  the  literature 
of  the  period.  Dairying  was  another  profitable  industry,  and  German 
cheese  was  even  then  an  article  of  export  throughout  Europe.  Forestry 
was  already  an  art,  if  not  a  science,  and  there  were  strict  rules  for  the 
felling  of  all  sorts  of  trees,  while  reforestation  was  regularly  practiced. 
The  good  order  and  cleanliness  of  the  housekeeping  is  witnessed  by  several 
English  travelers  of  the  time  as  being  far  in  advance  of  what  was  known 
hi  their  own  country,  excelled  nowhere  but  in  the  Netherlands.1 

The  clothing  of  these  peasants  was  good,  even  rich,  especially  the  one 
Sunday  costume,  which  it  was  a  point  of  honor  for  everyone  to  possess, 
and  to  wear  also  on  fete  days  and  special  occasions,  as  is  the  custom  to- 
day. The  people  were  not  only  well  fed  but  well  clothed.  They  had  an 
abundance  of  meat  and  other  good  food.  Wine  was  drunk  as  freely 
among  them  as  tea  and  coffee  with  us.  The  wages  of  a  day  laborer  for 
a  week  would  buy  him  a  sheep  and  a  pair  of  shoes,  or  a  good  suit  of 
clothes.  A  day's  wages  would  be  the  equivalent  of  hah7  a  bushel  of  rye,  or 
three  quarters  of  a  bushel  of  oats,  a  bushel  of  turnips  or  six  to  seven 
pounds  of  meat.  The  earnings  of  three  weeks  would  buy  a  good  cow. 
From  these  samples  of  the  purchasing  power  of  his  wages,  it  will  be 
seen  that  the  man  of  the  fifteenth  century  who  could  bring  to  the  labor 
market  nothing  but  a  strong  pair  of  hands  was  about  as  well  off  as  his 
brother  among  us. 

But  a  great  change  in  the  lot  of  the  peasants  was  taking  place  as  the 
sixteenth  century  opened.  There  had  been  such  a  sharp  rise  of  prices  as 
we  have  experienced  in  the  United  States  since  1900,  amounting  to  an 
increase  of  fifty  per  cent,  in  the  average  cost  of  living,  while  wages,  which 

1  A  spirited  and  on  the  whole  fairly  accurate  picture  of  the  social  state  of  Europe 
in  the  fifteenth  century,  including  Germany,  is  given  in  the  well-known  historical 
romance  of  Charles  Reade,  "The  Cloister  and  the  Hearth." 


INTRODUCTION  xli 

were  then  fixed  by  law,  had  remained  stationary.  Economists  are  prac- 
tically agreed  that  this  rise  of  prices  after  1500  was  due  to  the  depreciation 
of  silver.  This  was  not  caused,  however,  as  some  writers  have  urged,  by 
the  importation  of  silver  from  America — the  great  flood  of  American 
bullion  came  later — but  by  increased  production  at  home.  The  Fuggers 
and  other  capitalists  obtained  control  of  long-unworked  silver  mines,  in 
the  Tyrol  and  elsewhere,  from  1487  onward,  and  exploited  them  to  the 
utmost.  The  Fuggers  are  said  by  one  in  their  employ  to  have  increased 
their  capital  13,000,000  florins  in  seven  years;  but  we  have  no  data  for  an 
estimate  of  the  percentage  of  this  increase  that  should  be  credited  to  their 
mining  operations,  though  no  doubt  it  was  large.  The  Bohemian  mines, 
which  had  been  closed  during  theHusite  wars,  were  reopened  in  1492,  and 
thenceforth  poured  out  a  large  and  steady  flood  of  silver.  Whatever  the 
cause,  the  result  was  great  distress  among  the  peasants,  and  of  course 
much  dissatisfaction  when  they  compared  their  want  with  the  apparent 
plenty  of  other  classes. 

But  even  worse  than  this  was  the  disturbance  of  their  status  caused  by 
the  already  noted  introduction  of  the  Roman  law.  Under  this  law  peas- 
ants were  excluded  from  the  tribunals.  No  such  class  as  peasants  existed 
in  the  Rome  of  the  Caesars,  and  there  was  therefore  no  provision  for  them 
in  the  law.  The  Justinian  Code  practically  recognizes  but  two  classes: 
nobles  and  slaves.  With  this  extension  of  the  Roman  law  and  the  practical 
disuse  of  the  ancient  German  law  of  custom,  the  peasants  were  more  and 
more  reduced  to  the  footing  of  slaves,  to  whom  no  redress  of  wrongs  was 
possible.  They  were  deprived  of  their  ancient  communal  rights.  The 
nobles  seized  upon  their  marks,  and  forbade  the  peasants  to  graze  their 
animals  there  or  to  cut  a  stick  of  timber.  Those  who  had  held  property 
on  life  leases  were  evicted,  or  compelled  to  exchange  their  holdings  for 
short-term  leases,  always  with  increased  rents.  Peasants  were  now  for- 
bidden to  kill  game,  even  the  small  animals  that  destroyed  their  crops,  or 
to  catch  fish.  Any  peasant  found  off  the  paths  or  carrying  a  weapon  was 
liable  to  be  deprived  of  both  eyes.  He  was  not  only  not  permitted  to  kill 
the  game  himself,  but  was  even  compelled  to  assist  his  lord  to  hunt  it, 
either  by  personal  service  or  by  furnishing  wagons  and  horses  as  they 
might  be  requisitioned.  In  endless  ways,  what  he  had  good  reason  to 
regard  as  his  immemorial  rights  were  now  constantly  infringed,  and  that 
without  remedy. 

No  wonder  uprisings  of  the  peasants  began  to  occur  during  the  closing 
decades  of  the  fifteenth  century,  and  we  shall  not  be  surprised  to  meet  such 
troubles  in  the  course  of  our  study  of  the  Reformation.  The  Bundschuh, 
or  laced  boot  of  the  peasant,  was  their  standard,  and  it  had  been  several 
times  displayed,  always  with  disorder  and  bloodshed,  before  the  Refor- 


xlii  INTRODUCTION 

mation  began.  We  are  thus  forewarned  against  the  error  of  many  his- 
torians, who  have  identified  with  the  Reformation  movement  this  resis- 
tance offered  by  the  peasants  to  their  oppressors,  and  we  can  see  in  it 
merely  the  act  of  men  driven  to  desperation  by  their  wrongs.  We  shall 
not  imagine  that  Luther,  or  any  other  religious  teachers,  were  responsible 
for  outbreaks  that  the  greed  and  lawlessness  of  the  ruling  classes  had 
provoked.  At  the  same  time  we  shall  also  be  prepared  to  find  that  the 
Reformation  was  seriously  affected  by  this  social  struggle. 


IV 

IN  the  Church  a  revolution  was  impending,  as  well  as  in  society  and 
the  State,  but  the  nature  of  that  revolution  could  not  be  clearly  fore- 
casted. The  signs  of  the  times,  as  seen  in  the  current  literature,  have 
been  much  misread  even  by  later  students  and  historians,  with  far  better 
opportunities  to  interpret  them  correctly.  Protestants  especially  are 
prone  to  exaggerate  the  disaffection  of  the  people  with  the  Church,  so 
long  as  it  exercised  only  its  legitimate  functions,  as  the  spiritual  guide  and 
teacher  of  men,  as  distinguished  from  the  abuses  of  the  ecclesiastical 
machine.  We  underrate,  because  we  ourselves  have  never  felt,  the  hold 
on  the  imagination  maintained  by  the  medieval  Church  through  its  vast 
and  imposing  unity.  We  underrate,  because  we  have  never  fully  compre- 
hended, the  appeal  made  to  the  highest  and  best  in  man  by  the  theory  of 
the  Roman  Catholic  Church. 

According  to  its  teaching,  Christ  established  the  Church  as  the  means 
of  men's  salvation,  and  outside  of  her  there  is  no  assurance  of  safety. 
Augustine  might  teach  that  we  may  charitably  hope  for  the  salvation  of 
the  unbaptized  and  of  heretics,  but  most  medieval  theologians  held  that 
outside  of  the  Church  all  were  irretrievably  lost.  To  this  Church  were 
committed  those  sacraments  which,  when  dispensed  by  a  duly  ordained 
priesthood,  were  the  channels  of  divine  grace,  and  became  effective  as 
opus  operatum,  by  their  own  inherent  efficiency,  irrespective  of  the  faith 
or  spiritual  fitness  of  the  recipient.  By  baptism  men  were  regenerated, 
by  confirmation  they  were  admitted  to  the  full  privileges  and  duties  of 
Christians,  by  penance  they  were  freed  from  the  penalties  of  sin,  in  the 
eucharist  they  were  nourished  by  the  very  body  and  blood  of  the  Christ 
who  died  for  them,  through  extreme  unction  they  were  prepared  for  the 
inevitable  end  that  awaits  all.1 

Over  this  Church,  entrusted  with  these  holy  mysteries,  Christ  had  himself 
set  Peter  and  his  successors,  and  had  given  to  them  the  keys  of  heaven 

1  These  sacraments  were  obligatory  on  every  Christian,  while  matrimony  and 
orders,  though  equally  sacred  and  as  truly  channels  of  divine  grace,  were  optional. 


INTRODUCTION  xliii 

and  hell,  making  them  his  vicegerents,  to  whom  all  men  owe  obedience 
as  to  Christ  himself,  in  all  things  spiritual.  And  to  this  Church  so  organ- 
ized he  had  given  infallibility,  since  he  had  promised  by  his  Spirit  to  lead 
his  followers  into  all  the  truth.  Whatever  the  whole  Church  taught, 
therefore,  through  its  ecumenical  councils,  was  the  voice  of  God  himself, 
and  must  be  fully  believed  and  obeyed.  To  doubt  what  the  Church 
approved  was  impiety,  to  resist  its  authority  was  to  fight  against  God. 
That  the  Pope,  as  head  of  the  Church,  was  also  an  infallible  teacher, 
though  this  was  widely  believed  and  by  some  strenuously  maintained, 
was  as  yet  only  reckoned  to  be  a  "pious  opinion,"  and  by  some  of  the 
great  doctors  of  the  Church,  notably  by  Thomas  Aquinas,  it  had  been 
questioned. 

To  be  cut  off  from  this  Church  was  therefore  the  greatest  misfortune 
that  could  befall  a  man,  for  excommunication  deprived  him  of  all  access 
to  grace  and  left  him  an  orphan  in  the  world.  To  cut  himself  off  from  this 
Church,  that  is,  to  be  guilty  of  schism,  was  the  greatest  crime  that  a 
Christian  could  commit.  The  greatest  but  one,  it  should  rather  be  said,  for 
the  sin  of  sins  was  to  deny  the  teaching  of  the  Church,  to  become  a  heretic. 
And  deliberately  to  teach  false  doctrine  to  others  was  to  be  as  much  worse 
than  a  murderer,  as  to  kill  the  soul  is  worse  than  to  kill  the  body.  Schism, 
therefore,  was  punished  by  excommunication  and  the  loss  of  civil  rights, 
but  heresy  was  extirpated  by  fire  and  sword,  without  mercy  and  without 
respite. 

Not  even  with  the  grave  did  the  Church  lose  its  hold  on  men,  rather  it 
tightened  its  grip  on  men  through  their  belief  in  a  future  life.  For,  by  its 
doctrine  of  purgatory,  of  the  intercession  of  saints,  of  the  possibility  of 
the  release  of  souls  from  torture  through  the  intercession  of  the  Church, 
so  that  those  so  favored  could  pass  from  this  place  of  suffering  at  once  to 
Paradise,  the  Church  riveted  the  last  and  most  effective  link  in  the  chain 
to  bind  men's  souls  into  complete  and  abject  submission.  Bold  indeed 
must  be  the  spirit,  lost  to  all  fear  of  consequences  in  time  and  eternity, 
that  could  resist  an  authority  so  awful,  grounded  in  such  teaching, 
defended  by  such  terrors. 

Not  content  with  these  spiritual  resources,  however,  the  Church  had 
fortified  her  power  with  every  worldly  advantage.  She  was  not  only 
omnipotent  but  omnipresent.  The  hand  of  the  Church  was  on  every  enter- 
prise, to  guide  and  control  it.  The  man  of  the  sixteenth  century  could  not 
gaze  anywhere,  could  not  turn  himself  around,  without  meeting  evidences 
of  the  power  of  the  Church.  Wherever  his  eye  fell,  in  town  or  city,  her 
towering  spires  and  vast  piles  of  stone  spoke  eloquently  of  her  power. 
Great  monasteries  were  found  in  every  important  city,  and  the  monks 
r, warmed  everywhere  like  bees.  Churchmen,  or  men  trained  by  the 


xliv  INTRODUCTION 

Church ;  filled  the  courts  of  law  and  all  offices  of  administration.  A  man 
could  not  make  his  will,  buy  or  sell  a  piece  of  land,  or  make  a  legal  con- 
tract, but  that  the  necessary  documents  must  be  drawn  up  by  an  eccle- 
siastic, or  at  any  rate  be  witnessed  by  a  notary  appointed  by  the  Church. 
The  universities  were  largely  officered  by  Churchmen,  and  with  few 
exceptions  their  teaching  was  controlled  by  the  Church.  The  press  was 
striving  to  break  away  from  Church  control,  but  as  yet  with  imperfect 
success,  for  no  book  could  be  lawfully  printed  without  ecclesiastical 
sanction.  The  enforcement  of  this  law  was  indeed  evaded,  and  was 
becoming  increasingly  difficult.  In  fact,  there  lay  one  of  the  chief  possi- 
bilities of  reformation. 

And  the  Church  was  powerful  through  her  vast  wealth.  The  German 
Church  was  reckoned  the  richest  in  Christendom.  One  third  of  the 
landed  property  was  estimated  to  be  in  her  possession,  and  her  in- 
come from  all  sources  was  enormous.  The  great  archbishoprics  exceeded 
in  revenues  the  incomes  of  the  richest  secular  princes,  and  excited  at  once 
their  envy  and  their  greed.  Probably  these  Sees  would  have  been  de- 
spoiled on  some  pretext,  long  before  the  sixteenth  century,  had  they  not 
been  made  the  appanages  of  the  princely  families  without  spoliation. 
But  while  this  policy  had  secured  for  the  Church  thus  far  the  safe  pos- 
session of  its  great  wealth,  and  had  promoted  the  ambition  of  a  few 
families,  it  had  alienated  the  people.  One  of  the  sources  of  the  Roman 
Church's  power  has  always  been  its  union  of  a  certain  democratic  spirit 
with  its  aristocratic  form;  there  has  been  possibility  of  promotion  of  the 
poorest,  according  to  the  measure  of  his  abilities.  The  present  Pope  is 
the  son  of  an  Italian  peasant,  and  while  many  of  his  predecessors  have 
come  from  noble  families,  all  through  the  centuries  there  have  been 
Pontiffs  who  boasted  no  higher  lineage  than  Pius  X.  Nowhere  but  in 
Germany  was  it  impossible  for  one  not  of  noble  birth  to  rise  to  high 
position  among  the  secular  clergy — only  in  the  monasteries  could  the  poor 
look  for  recognition  and  promotion,  and  they  were  not  certain  of  advance- 
ment even  there,  for  the  richest  foundations  became  also  the  prey  of  the 
notulity. 

power  of  the  Church  through  its  wealth  and  noble  connections  had 
been  greatly  lessened  by  the  frightful  corruption  that  had  come  to  prevail 
in  its  administration.  One  of  the  commonest  evils  was  that  of  pluralities. 
Thus  the  archbishop  of  Mainz  was  at  the  same  time  archbishop  of  Magde- 
burg and  bishop  of  Halberstadt,  the  archbishop  of  Bremen  was  also 
bishop  of  Verdun,  and  so  on.  It  is  plain  to  one  who  reads  the  history  of 
medieval  Germany  with  understanding  eyes,  that  the  real  gainer  in  the 
long  contest  between  Pope  and  Emperor,  of  which  Canossa  was  the  most 
dramatic  episode  and  the  Concordat  of  Worms  the  nominal  conclusion, 


INTRODUCTION  xlv 

was  neither  Emperor  nor  Pope,  but  the  German  nobility.  They  insin- 
uated themselves  into  the  great  ecclesiastical  fiefs,  and  even  all  the 
canonries  and  valuable  benefices,  leaving  to  the  poor  only  the  lower  ranks 
of  the  clergy  and  the  poorer  livings.  These  noble  ecclesiastics  had  a 
double  interest  in  resisting  imperial  authority  and  promoting  the  disinte- 
gration of  the  Empire.  The  effect  of  such  usurpation  by  the  nobility  was 
to  concentrate  great  revenues  and  great  power  in  the  hands  of  a  small 
class,  while  the  lower  clergy,  with  stipends  merely  nominal,  were  left  in  an 
incredible  state  of  poverty,  ignorance  and  immorality,  with  little  effective 
supervision  or  control.  Besides  this,*"  the  nobles  had  their  younger  sons 
appointed  to  the  richest  benefices  while  they  were  yet  mere  boys,  and 
their  example  was  followed  by  all  who  had  any  influence,  until  a  large 
part  of  the  desirable  posts  in  the  Church  were  nominally  held  by  those 
incapable  of  performing  their  duties.  These  enjoyed  the  revenues,  and 
from  them  doled  out  a  mere  pittance  to  inferior  clergy,  who  were  glad  to 
do  the  work  rather  than  starve.  This  was  the  case  throughout  Europe. 
John  Calvin,  one  of  the  chief  heroes  of  the  Reformation,  held  two  French 
benefices  which  his  thrifty  father  had  managed  to  secure  for  him,  for 
which  he  never  gave  the  slightest  equivalent  to  the  Church  in  service; 
and  it  was  by  their  aid  that  he  pursued  his  studies  at  the  universities  of 
Paris  and  Orleans.  And  this  ornament  of  the  Protestant  faith  did  not 
resign  his  benefices  until  two  years  after  he  had  rejected  the  doctrines  of 
the  Catholic  Church  and  had  been  doing  his  best  to  propagate  the  evan- 
gelical or  Protestant  doctrine,  one  year  before  the  publication  of  his 
"  Institutes. "  The  ethical  standards  of  the  time  may  be  measured  by 
this:  none  of  his  contemporaries,  Catholic  or  Protestant,  mentions  these 
facts  to  his  discredit  or  reproaches  him  with  any  dishonor.  That  this 
possession  of  great  sums  of  money,  for  which  they  made  little  or  no  pre- 
tense of  rendering  service,  was  a  constant  temptation  to  ecclesiastics  to 
indulge  in  the  luxury,  drunkenness  and  licentiousness  with  which  they 
were  universally  charged,  is  obvious.  That  there  should  have  been  an 
occasional  pious  prelate,  in  spite  of  such  conditions  is,  indeed,  little  short 
of  a  miracle. 

•The  most  eloquent  pen  of  a  modern  writer  could  not  draw  such  a  picture 
of  the  general  depravity  of  the  Church  administration  as  is  drawn  by  the 
dry  catalogue  of  abuses  contained  in  the  Centum  Gravamina.  And  that 
document  is  not  the  rhetorical  exaggeration  of  a  Protestant  polemic,  but 
the  sober  and  well-considered  complaints  of  men  still  loyal  to  the  Roman 
Church,  and  intending  to  remain  loyal,  who  are  but  demanding  redress 
of  grievances  that  had  come  to  be  intolerable.  Let  everyone  who  would 
form  a  mental  picture  of  what  the  Church  was,  in  the  sixteenth 
century,  in  the  actual  conduct  of  its  affairs,  from  sources  of  unquestion- 


xlvi  INTRODUCTION 

able  authenticity,  read  that  document  and  permit  it  to  make  its  own 
impression. 

How  this  general  attitude  of  the  German  Church  affected  men  of  the 
sixteenth  century,  we  may  easily  infer  from  a  tale  of  Boccaccio's  regarding 
the  Italian  Church  of  the  fourteenth  century.  It  is  the  second  novel  of 
the  first  day  of  the  "Decameron, "  and  it  relates  that  a  Jew  who  had  been 
earnestly  pressed  by  a  Christian  friend  to  accept  the  religion  of  Christ, 
insisted  on  making  a  journey  to  Rome  to  study  that  religion  at  its  fountain 
head  and  hi  its  purity.  On  his  return,  the  Christian,  who  knew  some- 
thing about  Rome,  and  feared  that  the  last  chance  of  the  Jew's  conversion 
had  been  lost,  asked  the  latter  what  he  thought  of  the  Holy  Father,  the 
cardinals  and  the  rest  of  the  court.  The  Jew  replied: 

To  me  it  seems  as  if  God  were  much  kinder  to  them  than  they 
deserve;  for  if  I  may  be  allowed  to  judge,  I  must  be  bold  to  tell  you 
that  I  have  seen  neither  sanctity,  devotion  nor  anything  good  in  the 
clergy  of  Rome;  but  on  the  contrary,  luxury,  avarice,  gluttony,  and 
worse  than  these,  if  worse  things  can  be,  are  so  much  in  fashion  with 
all  sorts  of  people,  that  I  should  rather  esteem  the  court  of  Rome  to 
be  a  forge,  if  you  will  allow  the  expression,  for  diabolical  operations 
than  things  divine;  and  for  what  I  can  perceive,  your  pastor,  and 
consequently  the  rest,  strive  with  their  whole  might  and  skill  to 
overthrow  the  Christian  religion,  and  to  drive  it  off  the  face  of  the 
earth,  even  where  they  ought  to  be  its  chief  succor  and  support.  But 
as  I  do  not  see  this  come  to  pass,  which  they  earnestly  aim  at — on  the 
contrary,  that  your  religion  gains  strength,  and  becomes  every  day 
more  glorious — I  plainly  perceive  the  Spirit  of  God  to  be  the  pro- 
tector of  it,  as  the  most  true  and  holy  of  all  others.  For  which  reason, 
though  I  continued  obstinate  to  your  exhortations,  nor  would  suffer 
myself  to  be  converted  by  them,  now  I  declare  to  you  that  I  will  no 
longer  defer  being  made  a  Christian.  Let  us  go  then  to  your  church, 
and  do  you  take  care  that  I  be  baptized  according  to  the  manner  of 
your  holy  faith. 

It  is  not  too  much  to  say  that,  at  the  opening  of  the  sixteenth  century, 
Germany  was  seething  with  discontent,  and  at  the  verge  of  an  outbreak 
against  the  papacy.  But  it  was  the  Papacy,  rather  than  the  Church 
itself,  that  was  the  object  of  anger  and  opposition.  The  Diets  at  Augs- 
burg, in  1500,  1510  and  1518,  were  occupied  largely  in  the  making  of 
bitter  complaints  against  papal  exactions  and  the  corruption  of  papal 
agents.  The  greater  portion  of  the  complaints  in  the  Centum  Gravamina 
were  of  long  standing,  and  had  been  urged  in  public  and  private  for  several 
generations,  with  a  force  to  which  each  decade  gave  new  increment.  The 
feeling  against  Rome  was  at  fever  heat  when  the  first  protest  against  the 
abuse  of  indulgences  was  uttered  by  Luther.  Germans  of  all  classes 
were  ripe  for  revolt,  longing  for  a  champion  and  mouthpiece.  The  princes 
were  looking  about  for  a  plausible  casus  belli,  and  were  rejoiced  when  the 


INTRODUCTION  xlvii 

trouble  broke  out;  and  while  at  first  perhaps  no  one  of  them  had  any 
fixed  design  of  defying  the  Church,  and  certainly  not  one  had  any  serious 
desire  for  a  real  reform,  they  felt  willing  to  tolerate  or  encourage  any 
protest,  as  a  means  of  forcing  the  Pope's  hand  and  obtaining  better  terms 
for  themselves.  They  were  accustomed  to  dicker  with  the  Pope  in  this 
way,  and  anticipated  more  than  the  usual  profit.  As  the  movement 
gathered  force,  the  rulers  saw  a  tempting  opportunity  to  enrich  themselves 
by  despoiling  the  Church,  to  increase  their  own  power  at  the  expense  of 
both  Pope  and  Emperor,  and  this  made  a  considerable  number  of  them 
enthusiastic  Protestants. 

Nevertheless,  the  power  of  the  Church  appeared  irresistible,  hi  no  danger 
of  being  seriously  impaired.  Could  it  be  reasonably  supposed  that  any 
human  force  could  overturn  a  system  so  intrenched  and  fortified?  The 
reply  to  such  a  question  seemed  to  be  made  all  the  more  certain  by  the 
well-known  fact  that  there  had  been  many  revolts  against  the  Papacy 
before  this,  and  only  the  Husites  of  Bohemia  had  caused  any  real  concern. 
They  successfully  defied  the  combined  powers  of  Pope  and  Emperor  for 
more  than  a  generation,  but  they  had  been  finally  crushed,  and  all  other 
attempts  at  rebellion  had  been  suppressed  with  ease.  There  had  been 
many  demands  within  the  Church  for  its  reform  in  head  and  members, 
and  several  councils  had  assembled  that  had  declared  such  reformation 
to  be  their  purpose.  But  all  attempts  had  come  to  nothing,  and  the 
Papacy  emerged  from  this  long  contest  with  a  stronger  grip  on  the  Church 
than  ever — and  also  more  corrupt  than  ever.  It  seemed  to  the  Constance 
fathers  that  no  greater  monster  of  iniquity  than  John  XXIII  could  ever 
be  seated  in  the  papal  chair,  but  they  had  not  known  Alexander  VI. 

If  these  medieval  attempts  at  reform  are  closely  scanned,  it  becomes 
evident  that  they  were  half-hearted  and  foredoomed  to  failure.  They 
aimed  at  only  the  practical  or  disciplinary  betterment  of  existing  evils, 
without  striking  at  the  root  out  of  which  the  abuses  grew,  namely,  the 
doctrinal  system  of  the  Roman  Church.  No  radical  reform,  going  to  the 
very  foundation  of  the  evils  bewailed,  was  really  desired  or  by  any  be- 
lieved to  be  possible.  There  was  no  idea  within  the  Church  of  a  complete 
break  with  existing  doctrine  and  organization,  no  serious  attempt  at  a 
return  to  the  apostolic  norm.  It  was  the  very  Constance  fathers  who 
clamored  loudest  for  "reformation"  who  burned  the  only  real  reformers 
of  their  time,  John  Hus  and  Jerome  of  Prag.  Every  man  who  had  hitherto 
attempted  a  real  reform — such  men  as  Arnold  of  Brescia,  Peter  of  Bruys, 
Waldo,  Wiclif — had  been  driven  into  the  attitude  of  schismatic  or  heretic, 
sometimes  both.  Peaceful  reform  within  the  Church  had  been  demon- 
strated to  be  a  mere  dream.  It  was  evident  that  reform  must  be  achieved, 
if  at  all,  by  separation  from  the  Church  and  a  life-and-death  struggle. 


xlviii  INTRODUCTION 

This  conclusion  is  emphasized  by  the  failure  of  the  more  spiritual 
movements  within  the  Church  to  effect  anything  toward  its  regeneration. 
Monachism  came  nearest  to  a  religious  reformation  of  any  organized 
effort  in  the  Church.  From  time  to  time  it  did  produce  widespread  re- 
vivals of  religion,  and  led  the  way  in  great  missionary  enterprises;  but 
monachism  was  founded  on  a  pagan  principle,  and  therefore  could  never 
recreate  primitive  Christianity.  The  mystics  of  the  Middle  Ages  were  the 
greatest  unorganized  reformatory  force  in  the  Church,  and  it  did  seem  at 
times  that  their  teachings  might  slowly  leaven  the  whole  lump.  But  the 
mystics  had  been  noncombatants;  they  had  been  too  content  with  mere 
toleration  in  the  Church,  and  had  not  attempted  any  general  reform, 
perhaps  they  were  hopeless  of  accomplishing  so  grand  a  program. 
Though  men  like  Tauler  and  Thomas  a  Kempis  succeeded  in  stimulating 
the  spiritual  lives  of  thousands,  and  so  religion  pure  and  undefiled  never 
became  quite  extinct  in  the  Roman  Church,  the  powers  that  controlled 
the  doctrinal  and  institutional  development  of  the  Church  were  quite 
unaffected.  A  few  individuals  taught  a  pure  Gospel,  and  here  and  there 
a  single  voice  was  raised  against  the  abuse  of  indulgences,  but  the  name 
of  "Reformers  before  the  Reformation"  that  has  been  given  to  these  men 
describes  their  character,  rather  than  measures  their  achievement.  They 
reformed  nothing.  They  hardly  attempted  reform.  And  their  influence 
was  so  circumscribed  that,  though  John  of  Wesel  had  once  taught  in 
Luther's  own  university  of  Erfurt,  only  a  generation  before  his  day, 
Luther  had  never  heard  of  his  predecessor  or  his  teaching  when  he  began 
his  own  protest  against  Rome.  It  was  only  after  his  work  had  progressed 
some  years  that  writings  of  these  mystics  came  into  his  hands,  and  he  was 
then  astonished  to  find  how  they  had  anticipated  him. 

In  this  survey  of  Germany  at  the  opening  of  the  sixteenth  century,  it 
has  become  evident  that  many  things  were  conspiring  to  produce  a  revolt 
against  the  Roman  Church.  Such  a  revolt  would  be  the  more  formidable 
from  the  fact  that  the  Papacy  was  then  chiefly  dependent  on  Germany 
for  its  revenues,  since  the  other  European  nations  had  succeeded  measur- 
ably in  freeing  themselves  from  papal  exploitation.  The  princes  and  mer- 
chants, for  different  reasons,  were  very  restless  under  this  spoliation  of  a 
people  of  whom  they  would  fain  have  been  the  despoilers.  This  was 
the  real  cause  of  the  revolt  from  the  Papacy  that  we  call  the  Reformation 
— an  economic  and  political  struggle  at  bottom,  to  which  the  religious 
aspect  given  by  the  initial  quarrel  about  indulgences  was  merely  inci- 
dental. The  revolt  would  have  occurred  had  Martin  Luther  never  lived. 
For  we  have  outgrown  Carlyle's  specious  one-man  theory  of  history,  and 
no  longer  believe  that  the  story  of  human  progress  is  nothing  more  than 


INTRODUCTION  xlix 

the  biography  of  a  few  great  men.  The  old  notion  that  Luther  made  the 
Reformation  is  probably  not  held  to-day  by  any  person  of  average  intel- 
ligence. At  most  he  only  led  and  directed  a  movement  that  was  inevitable. 
Germany  was  a  powder  mine,  ready  to  be  exploded  by  a  spark,  and  a 
spark  was  morally  certain  to  come  soon  from  some  quarter.1  As  it  fell 
out,  Luther's  theses  were  the  spark,  and  nobody  in  all  Europe,  except 
perhaps  the  Pope,  was  more  surprised  than  Luther  himself  by  the  violence 
of  the  resulting  explosion.  While,  therefore,  the  conditions  in  Germany 
were  such  that  some  great  struggle  in  the  Church  was  impending,  some 
momentous  change  certain  to  come,  the  character  of  the  change  and  the 
means  by  which  it  should  be  brought  about  were  not  even  conjectured. 
Every  great  movement  is  the  joint  product  of  a  great  opportunity  and  a 
great  man,  a  powerful,  molding  personality  concurring  with  a  silent, 
resistless  tendency.  Of  no  movement  in  history  is  this  more  true  than  of 
the  Reformation,  and  in  none  are  the  two  factors  more  distinctly  traceable. 
But  while  we  can  see  these  things  clearly,  from  the  men  of  the  sixteenth 
century  they  were  hidden.  Never  had  the  Roman  Church  seemed  to  be 
more  solid,  less  in  danger  of  formidable  attack  from  within  or  from  with- 
out. There  had  just  been  a  last  struggle  for  "reform, "  and  an  ecumenical 
council,  the  fifth  Lateran,  had  been  summoned  to  give  effect  to  this 
demand  for  the  purification  of  the  Church.  As  usual,  the  cry  for  reform 
had  become  fainter  with  every  month  of  the  council's  sitting,  and  the 
body  was  dissolved  with  nothing  accomplished.  It  was  on  May  16,  1517, 
that  the  council  adjourned,  leaving  Leo  X  absolute  monarch  of  the 
Church,  with  no  party  anywhere  capable  of  making  head  against  him. 
He  had  seemingly  no  future  opposition  to  fear.  And  it  was  in  Novem- 
ber of  that  very  year  that  the  storm  broke. 

1  "This  falling  down  and  perishing  of  abuses  was  already  in  full  sweep  in  many 
parts  before  Luther's  doctrine  came;  for  all  the  world  was  so  tired  of  the  abuses 
of  the  clergy  and  so  hostile  to  them,  that  it  was  to  be  feared  that  there  would  be 
a  lamentable  perdition  in  the  German  land  if  Luther's  doctrine  did  not  come 
into  it,  so  that  the  people  might  be  instructed  in  the  faith  of  Christ  and  obedience 
to  the  authorities.  For  they  would  not  endure  the  abuses  any  longer,  and  would 
have  a  change  right  off,  if  the  clergy  would  not  yield  or  stop,  so  that  there  should 
be  no  resistance.  It  would  have  been  a  disorderly,  stormy,  and  perilous  mutation 
or  change  (as  Miinzer  began  it)  if  a  steadfast  doctrine  had  not  come  in  between, 
and  without  doubt  all  religion  would  have  fallen  to  pieces,  and  Christians  become 
pure  Epicureans." — Luther  to  Elector  John  at  Speyer,  in  1529.  De  Wette. 
3:439. 


THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 


PART  I 

FROM  THE  BEGINNING  OF  THE  REFORMATION  TO 

THE  EDICT  OF  WORMS 

1517-1521 


THE 
REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 


CHAPTER  I 

THE   MAKING   OF  MARTIN  LUTHER 

IN  the  initial  stage  of  the  German  Reformation,  Luther  was  the  chief 
actor,  and  up  to  the  Diet  of  Worms,  in  1521,  we  have  little  more  to  do 
than  to  trace  the  development  of  his  intellectual  and  spiritual  life.  He 
was  born  at  Eisleben,  November  10,  1483,  according  to  his  mother's 
rather  uncertain  recollection.  The  next  day  was  St.  Martin's  day,  and 
in  honor  of  that  saint  he  was  named  Martin  at  his  baptism  in  the  Petrus- 
kirche,  where  the  font  used  is  still  shown.  His  father  was  named  John 
and  his  mother  Margaret.  An  attempt  has  been  made  to  give  them  a 
noble  origin,  but  Luther  said  to  Melanchthon  in  after  years:  "I  am  a 
peasant's  son.  My  father,  my  grandfather,  all  my  ancestors,  were 
thorough  peasants.  My  father  was  a  poor  miner."1  Miner  he  may  have 
been  and  poor,  but  John  Luther  was  a  man  of  strong  character,  and  had 
an  honest  ambition  for  his  own  and  his  children's  advancement.  To  this 
end  he  and  his  wife  cheerfully  worked  together,  toiling  and  saving  as 
best  they  could,  and  as  the  years  went  on  they  prospered.  They  were 
decidedly,  almost  sternly,  pious;  the  home  discipline  was  very  severe; 
and,  what  is  rather  unusual,  the  mother  was  more  ready  with  the  rod 
than  the  father. 

When  Martin  was  only  six  months  old  his  parents  moved  to  Mansfeld, 
and  here  at  a  very  early  age  he  was  sent  to  school.  He  had  no  very 
pleasant  recollections  of  this  school,  where  he  learned  little  and  sometimes 
received  as  many  as  fifteen  floggings  in  a  single  day.  In  1497  he  was  sent 
to  Magdeburg,  where  he  spent  only  one  year,  and  then  to  Eisenach.  Here 
he  remained  four  years  in  the  Latin  school  of  the  parish  of  St.  George. 
Schools  like  this  were  numerous  in  Germany  —  there  were  then  no  fewer 
than  four  in  Eisenach  —  and  they  are  convincing  witness  to  the  already 


to  Melanchthon,  de  Wette,  4:33.     Luther  always  spoke  of  both  his 

Earents  with  respect  and  affection,  but  especially  of  his  father.     On  the  day  that 
e  heard  of  the  latter's  death  he  declared  to  Melanchthon  that  everything  that 
he  was  or  had  he  had  received  from  his  Creator  through  his  beloved  father. 


4  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

developing  intellectual  life  of  that  country.  Here  Luther  laid  the  foun- 
dation of  his  subsequent  learning.  The  teacher  was  a  Carmelite  friar 
named  John  Trebonius,  of  whom  it  is  related  that  he  always  took  off  his 
cap  on  entering  the  school,  in  honor  of  boys  out  of  whom,  as  he  said, 
"God  might  make  rulers,  chancellors,  doctors,  magistrates."  Out  of 
one  of  these  boys  God  did  indeed  make  the  greatest  man  of  his  generation. 
It  was  the  custom  at  Eisenach,  as  it  had  been  at  Magdeburg,  for  the 
scholars  to  sing  hi  the  streets  and  receive  alms  from  the  citizens.  As  a 
boy  Luther  had  a  sweet  alto  voice,  which  later  became  a  tenor,  and  on 
one  of  his  rounds  he  attracted  the  attention  of  Frau  Cotta,  the  wife  of  a 
well-to-do  citizen,  who  invited  him  into  her  house  and  fed  him,  and  after- 
wards treated  him  as  an  inmate  of  her  family.  The  Cottahaus  is  still 
preserved  at  Eisenach,  the  first  story  being  now  a  Bierstube  ("To  what 
base  uses  may  we  return,  Horatio!"),  while  the  upper  rooms  are  a  Luther 
museum.  The  little  cell  in  which  Luther  slept  makes  one  pity  the  school- 
boys who  had  worse  quarters.  This  life  at  Eisenach  the  reformer  always 
spoke  of  with  gratitude  and  pleasure,  and  he  often  called  that  city  his 
"beloved  town." 

From  Eisenach  Luther  went  to  Erfurt,  a  larger  city,  even  then  boasting 
some  sixty  thousand  inhabitants,  the  seat  of  one  of  the  finest  cathedrals 
in  Germany,  and,  what  is  more  significant,  of  a  celebrated  university, 
established  by  a  bull  of  Clement  VII  hi  1379,  the  fifth  institution  of  its 
rank  to  be  founded  in  Germany.1  It  was  John  Luther's  ambition  to  fit 
his  son  for  the  practice  of  law,  one  of  the  most  lucrative  callings  of  the 
age,  and  to  see  him  the  trusted  adviser  of  the  Counts  of  Mansfeld.  As 
the  miner  increased  in  wealth,  and  rose  in  the  esteem  of  his  fellow  towns- 
men until  he  became  burgomaster  of  Mansfeld,  his  desires  for  the  advance- 
ment of  his  son  were  quickened.  He  then  saw,  as  many  a  poor  man  has 
seen  since,  that  for  a  youth  of  strong  natural'  abilities  the  shortest  way 
to  influence  and  power  is  through  halls  of  learning.  In  the  lecture  room, 
in  the  sharp  contact  of  mind  with  mind,  the  accidental  distinctions  of 
wealth  and  birth  count  for  little,  and  the  young  men  are  esteemed  or 
despised  according  to  their  scholastic  attainments.  The  German  peasant 
might  not  hope  easily  to  pass  the  line  that  separated  him  from  the  feudal 
nobility,  but  the  way  was  open  to  him  into  the  ranks  of  the  aristocracy 
of  letters.  Distinction  in  learning  was  therefore  hardly  less  coveted  than 
distinction  in  arms. 

1  The  university  of  Erfurt  was  closed  in  1816.  Luther  was  matriculated  as 
"Martinus  Ludher  ex  Mansfelt,"  and  when  he  took  his  baccalaureate  degree  the 
name  is  spelled  Luder.  In  Wittenberg  he  was  matriculated  as  Liider.  The 
spelling  Luther  does  not  appear  to  have  been  definitely  adopted  until  1517,  though 
in  the  earliest  of  his  letters  extant,  under  date  of  April  23,  1507,  he  signs  himself 
"Frater  Martinus  Luther."  After  he  learned  Greek  he  sometimes  signed  himself 
"Martinus  Eleutherios,"  but  this  was  merely  a  pun. 


THE  MAKING  OF  MARTIN  LUTHER  5 

At  Erfurt  the  students  were  divided  into  two  groups,  one  calling  them- 
selves "poets, "  the  other  "philosophers. "  The  former  were  the  Human- 
ists, and  busied  themselves  with  the  study  of  the  Latin  classics — Greek 
was  not  yet  a  part  of  the  regular  university  course,  and  just  before  Luther 
entered  Erfurt  the  only  teacher  of  Greek  that  the  institution  boasted  had 
left.  The  "philosophers"  preferred  logic  and  the  scholastic  philosophy. 
Luther  was  not  one  of  the  "poets,"  that  select  and  distinguished  body 
who  prided  themselves  on  the  Ciceronian  purity  of  their  Latin  and  made 
a  serious  business  of  writing  elegant  trifles.  But  he  was  not  deficient  in 
Latin;  he  was  an  appreciative  reader  of  Vergil  and  Ovid  and  Cicero;  we 
hardly  know  how  much  it  signifies  that  he  took  with  him  into  the  mon- 
astery, as  his  only  books, -his  Plautus  and  Vergil.  He  apparently  made 
no  deep  impression  on  the  university,  and  probably  but  for  his  later 
distinction  few  or  none  of  his  fellow  students  would  have  recalled  that 
while  among  them  he  had  been  a  musician  and  a  learned  "philosopher/' 
In  the  numerous  letters  left  to  posterity  by  the  aspiring  Erfurt  Humanists, 
his  name  is  never  mentioned.  Melanchthon's  statement  that  Luther's 
talents  were  the  wonder  of  the  university  is  hardly  borne  out  by  the 
official  record  that  when  he  took  his  baccalaureate  degree,  at  Michelmas, 
in  1502,  he  ranked  only  thirtieth  in  a  list  of  fifty-seven  candidates.  That 
is  respectable,  to  be  sure,  but  one  requires  the  vivid  imagination  of  a 
eulogist  to  see  anything  of  startling  brilliancy  in  it.  He  did  better  on 
taking  his  Master's  degree,  at  Epiphany,  1505,  when  he  ranked  second 
among  seventeen  candidates. 

During  these  years,  Martin  had  shown  no  special  predilection  for  a  life 
of  piety.  It  does  not  appear  that  he  was  in  any  marked  degree  wild  or 
irreligious;  he  was  probably  just  about  the  average  youth.  It  was  only 
toward  the  close  of  his  university  studies  that  the  religious  side  of  his 
nature  began  to  assert  itself.  In  his  wanderings  through  the  library,  he 
found  one  day  a  Latin  Bible.  He  had  never  before  seen  an  entire  Bible, 
and  it  strongly  excited  his  interest  and  curiosity.  He  was  surprised  to 
find  how  big  a  book  it  was,  and  eagerly  turned  its  pages  and  read  the 
story  of  Samuel.  This  story  is  told  by  all  the  biographers  of  Luther,  on 
the  authority  of  Mathesius,  one  of  the  earliest,  who  for  some  time  lived 
in  the  reformer's  family  and  obtained  many  such  biographical  details 
from  his  teacher's  own  lips.  The  most  recent  writers  are  inclined  to 
discredit  the  story  as  inherently  incredible.  They  point  out  the  facts 
regarding  the  circulation  of  the  Bible,  both  Latin  and  vernacular,  and 
tell  us  that  Luther  must  have  taken  great  pains  to  keep  himself  in  a  state 
of  ignorance,  if  he  knew  no  more  about  the  Bible  than  this  anecdote 
implies. 

It  is  not  necessary  to  discredit  the  incident,  however,  even  if  it  be 


6  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

possible  to  do  so;  and  that  is  difficult,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  essentially 
the  same  thing  is  recorded  in  the  Table  Talk  as  spoken  by  Luther  himself.1 
The  real  difficulty  is  not  so  much  with  the  incident  as  with  the  inferences 
that  have  been  drawn  from  it.  Protestant  writers  have  often  seized  on 
the  occurrence  as  proof  of  the  darkness  of  the  times,  of  the  indifference 
of  the  Roman  Church  to  the  instruction  of  the  people  in  the  Scriptures, 
and  have  by  comparison  exalted  the  work  of  the  reformers  in  their  trans- 
lation and  circulation  of  the  Scriptures.  What  the  incident  actually  proves 
is  merely  Luther's  own  personal  ignorance.  If  he  did  not  know  that  the 
passages  which  he  had  heard  read  in  church  did  not  constitute  the  whole 
Bible,  there  were  nevertheless  in  Germany  many  who  did  know  this.  His 
case  is  not  singular,  though  possibly  exceptional.  A  French  writer, 
Robert  Etienne,  speaking  of  the  state  of  things  in  France  in  the  early  part 
of  the  sixteenth  century,  represents  members  of  the  Sorbonne,  the  great 
theological  school  of  Paris,  as  not  knowing  the  relative  place  of  the  New 
Testament,  whether  it  came  after  or  before  the  Old.  He  quotes  a  member 
of  the  school  as  saying,  "I  was  more  than  fifty  years  old  before  I  knew 
anything  about  the  New  Testament." 

There  is  nothing  to  show  that  Luther's  feelings  of  wonder  and  pleasure 
in  becoming  acquainted  with  the  Bible  made  any  lasting  impression  on 
him.  His  father's  wish  that  he  should  become  a  lawyer  had  apparently 
been  his  own,  but  we  may  reasonably  conjecture  that  as  the  time  came 
when  by  entering  on  the  preparation  for  his  profession  he  should  fix  his 
occupation  for  life,  he  was  first  induced  to  consider  seriously  what  he  had 
all  along  accepted  as  matter  of  course.  The  most  accurate  information 
that  we  have  about  his  decision  to  become  a  monk  is  given  in  a  letter 
written  to  his  father,  in  1521,  on  the  renunciation  of  his  vows.  He  says: 
"It  is  almost  sixteen  years  since  I  took  the  monastic  vows,  without  your 
knowledge  or  consent.  .  .  .  I  well  remember  telling  you  that  I  was  called 
through  a  terrible  apparition  from  heaven,  so  that,  when  face  to  face  with 
death,  I  made  the  vow;  and  you  exclaimed/ God  grant  it  was  not  an  appa- 
rition of  the  Evil  One  that  startled  you. '"  2  This  is  more  satisfactory  than 
the  stories  that  have  gathered  about  this  turning-point  in  his  life,  most 
of  which  have  their  legendary  character  stamped  plainly  upon  them, 
especially  the  tale  of  the  youthful  companion  stricken  down  at  his  side  by 
a  bolt  of  lightning,  and  his  vowing  in  his  terror,  "Help,  beloved  St.  Anna, 
I  will  become  a  monk! "  What  is  certain  is,  that  on  July  17,  1505,  Luther 

1  Da  ich  zwanzig  jahre  alt  war,  hatte  ich  noch  keine  Bibel  gesehen;  ich  meinte, 
es  waren  keine  Evangelien  und  Epistolen  mehr,  denn  die  in  den  Postellen  sind. — 
Tischreden,  No.  1743;  Mathesius,  first  sermon,  p.  3. 

2  Currie,  p.  87.     Letter  dated  November  21,   1521,  and  sent  to  John  Luther 
with  a  copy  of  the  reformer's  treatise  (De  Votis  Monasticis,  Wittenberg,  1521). — 
De  Wette,  2:100;  6:25. 


THE  MAKING  OF  MARTIN  LUTHER  7 

presented  himself  at  the  door  of  the  Augustinian  convent  in  Erfurt  and 
asked  admission  as  a  novice.1 

Not  only  did  John  Luther  question  the  genuineness  of  this  call,  but  he 
had  a  right  to  feel  aggrieved.2  He  had  a  strong  sense  of  parental 
authority,  and  of  the  obligation  of  the  fifth  commandment.  He  saw  the 
cherished  plans  of  years  shattered  in  a  moment,  the  sacrifices  and  toils  of 
both  parents  made  valueless  by  the  wilfulness  of  him  for  whom  they  had 
been  cheerfully  given.  He  felt  that  whoever  else  might  despise  and  flout 
him,  his  son  owed  him  affection,  confidence  and  obedience.  And  in  later 
years  at. least,  perhaps  even  at  this  fime,  Luther  felt  that  his  father  was 
right,  that  he  himself  had  sinned.  The  fact  that  he  went  to  the  convent 
so  secretly  and  suddenly  argues  an  uneasy  conscience;  but  the  Church 
taught  that  in  such  case  God  must  be  obeyed  rather  than  father  and 
mother.  Many  and  subtle  are  the  causes  that  go  to  the  molding  of  a 
human  life;  it  is  more  than  probable  that  this  secret  sense  of  having  done 
an  unworthy  act,  as  well  as  the  remembrance  of  his  father's  grief  and 
indignation,  made  the  monk's  frock  sit  uneasily  on  Luther  from  the  first. 
Nevertheless  he  supposed  his  decision  to  be  irrevocable:  "I  never  thought 
to  come  out  of  the  convent;  I  was  clean  dead  to  the  world,  until  God 
deemed  that  the  time  had  come,  and  Tetzel  with  his  indulgences  drove 
me." 

Once  in  the  monastery,  Luther  entered  heartily  into  its  duties.  We 
are  always  prone  to  exaggerate  everything  connected  with  the  early  life 
of  a  great  man;  especially  if  he  has  sprung  from  obscurity  do  we  magnify 
his  humble  origin  and  the  hardships  of  his  youth,  in  contrast  with  the 
splendor  of  his  manhood.  Luther's  biographers  have  not  resisted  the 
temptation  to  make  him  everywhere  and  always  the  hero;  and  we  are 
often  at  no  little  loss  to  know  what  to  regard  as  sober  fact  and  what  to 
credit  to  an  amplifying  imagination.  It  is  not  rash  to  believe  that  the 
Augustinians  were  pleased  to  receive  the  young  Master  of  Arts  into  their 
brotherhood.  This  would  have  been  natural,  and  agrees  well  with  what 
we  know  of  the  anxiety  of  the  different  orders  to  obtain  accessions  to  their 
ranks  of  promising  scholars.  But  we  cannot  so  readily  accept  the  account 
that  represents  these  monks  as  manifesting  the  coarsest  jealousy  and  ill- 
will  toward  the  young  novice;  and  as  taking  delight  in  humiliating  him  by 
imposing  on  him  the  most  disagreeable  and  menial  tasks.  In  after  years 
Luther  made  no  mention  of  the  unkindness  of  his  brother  monks.  He  was 

1  The  Augustinians  were  a  comparatively  new  order,  having  been  established  by 
a  constitution  of  Benedict  XII,  May  15,  1339.— Mag.  Bull.  I:  237  seq. 

2  John  Luther  took  a  characteristic  way  of  manifesting  his  displeasure  with  his 
son's  conduct.    He  at  first  renounced  him  altogether,  but  friends  intervened  and 
he  was  half  reconciled  to  Martin,  but  from  that  time  resumed  the  familiar  du  in 
his  speech  and  writing,  instead  of  the  more  respectful  sie  which  he  had  used  since 
his  son  took  his  Master's  degree. 


8  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

probably  treated  just  as  other  novices  were  treated — naturally,  the  rules 
of  the  monastery  were  not  relaxed  in  his  favor.  If  we  are  to  trust  Luther's 
own  recollections  of  that  time,  he  would  have  had  his  duties  made  more 
burdensome  rather  than  lighter.  He  already  shows  in  the  monastery  a 
trait  that  was  characteristic  of  him  through  life :  he  lived  in  the  passing 
day,  performing  the  tasks,  bearing  the  burdens,  using  the  opportunities 
that  each  hour  brought  or  suggested. 

There  was  a  time  when  Roman  Catholic  writers  took  the  ground  that 
Luther  was  unfaithful  to  his  vows  in  the  monastery — that  he  was  never 
a  sincere  and  faithful  monk.  This  ground  they  have  abandoned,  and  the 
later  writers  admit  that  his  monastic  life  was  most  exemplary.  Janssen, 
the  most  learned  and  candid  of  Roman  historians,  maintains  with  con- 
siderable plausibility  that  Luther  never  had  a  genuine  "vocation"  to  the 
monastic  life,  but  entered  on  it  because  of  an  impetuous  resolve  and 
continued  in  the  same  self-willed  spirit.  Hence  he  fell  a  victim  to  an 
exaggerated  scrupulosity  of  conscience  and  subjected  himself  to  auster- 
ities not  warranted  by  the  rules  of  his  order.  Indeed,  Luther  tells  us  this 
himself:  "I  imposed  on  myself  additional  penances;  I  devised  a  special 
plan  of  discipline  for  myself.  The  seniors  in  my  Rule  objected  to  this 
irregularity,  and  they  were  right.  I  Was  a  criminal  self-torturer  and  self- 
destroyer,  for  I  imposed  on  myself  fastings,  prayers  and  vigils  beyond  my 
powers  of  endurance;  I  wore  myself  out  with  mortifications,  which  is 
nothing  less  than  self-murder. "  The  severity  of  his  parents  toward  him 
in  his  youth  had  bred  in  him  a  great  fear  of  God,  but  no  love,  and  so  he 
was  forever  trying  to  appease  an  angry  Judge  by  his  own  righteousness. 
"I  was  a  most  outrageous  believer  in  self -justification,  a  right  presump- 
tuous seeker  of  salvation  through  works,  not  trusting  in  God's  righteous- 
ness, but  in  my  own. "  And  so  he  came  actually  to  hate  God,  to  loathe 
the  very  sight  of  Christ  on  the  cross,  and  his  despair  brought  him  to  the 
verge  of  suicide.1 

From  this  long  period  of  religious  anxiety  and  spiritual  unrest  Luther 
came  out  at  last  with  strong  and  definite  convictions  as  to  the  way  of 
salvation  for  himself  and  others.  His  experience  was  not  essentially 
different  from  that  which  many  earnest-minded  men  have  passed  through, 
both  before  and  since  his  time.  Many  have  had  the  same  consciousness 
of  sin,  the  same  conceptions  of  the  holiness  of  God,  and  like  him  have  sought 
in  vain  to  quiet  the  heart  by  fasting  and  prayer,  by  mortification  of  the 

1  Luther's  references  to  his  monastic  life  in  his  later  writings  are  numerous 
and  all  in  the  same  key.  See  LDS,  46:  64,  73;  48:  306,317;  49:  300,  314;  Com.  on 
Gal.  1:  107.  Perhaps  the  most  characteristic  utterance  is  this:  Wahr  ists,  ein 
frommer  Munch  bin  ich  gewest,  und  so  gestrenge  meinen  Orden  gehalten,  das  ich 
sagen  dar:  ist  je  ein  Munch  gen  Himmel  kommen  durch  Muncherei,  so  wollt  ich  auch 
hinein  kommen  sein.  31:  273. 


THE  MAKING  OF  MARTIN  LUTHER  9 

flesh  and  humiliation  of  the  spirit.  It  is  not  so  much  with  his  spiritual 
troubles,  great  as  they  were,  as  with  the  manner  in  which  he  was  relieved 
of  them,  that  the  world  is  concerned.  This  was  largely  by  the  help  of 
judicious  friends.  Even  in  the  monastery  at  Erfurt  he  was  not  the  only 
man  who  had  painfully  groped  in  the  darkness  and  after  long  search  had 
found  light.  In  his  novitiate  he  had  been  placed  under  the  care  of  an  old 
monk,  who  was  to  be  his  mentor  and  guide.  It  was  this  monk  who  first 
reminded  him  that  sin  is  fully  remitted  to  those  who  believe  in  Christ. 
He  called  Luther's  attention  to  the  Apostles'  Creed,  and  especially  to  the 
clause,  "I  believe  in  the  forgiveness  ^of  sins."  This,  he  said,  was  not 
merely  a  remission  of  sins  generally,  but  of  our  own  sins  as  well.  It  was 
the  forgiveness  of  sins,  as  opposed  to  the  painful  expiation  of  them;  for- 
giveness, not  on  account  of  our  own  works  of  satisfaction,  but  for  the  sake 
of  Christ's  atonement  and  intercession. 

This  teaching  of  the  monk  was  fortified  by  that  of  John  von  Staupitz, 
the  vicar-general  of  the  Augustinians  for  Germany.  This  man  is  the  first 
whose  name  is  associated  with  Luther's  religious  history.  He  was  a  man 
of  gentleness,  simplicity  and  religious  earnestness;  learned  himself  and  a 
lover  of  learning;  but  that  which  gave  him  his  peculiar  qualification  to 
minister  to  distressed  souls  was  the  fact  that  he  had  learned  by  his  own 
experience,  "that  Jesus  Christ  is  the  Saviour  even  of  those  who  are  great, 
real  sinners,  and  deserving  of  utter  condemnation. "  He  gave  his  young 
friend  a  Bible.  Luther  had  evidently  found  the  right  school;  his  friends 
were  such  as  he  needed;  the  phrase  "The  just  shall  live  by  faith" 
became  fixed  in  his  mind,  afterwards  to  be  better  understood;  he  became 
a  student  of  the  Bible,  of  Augustine,  and  of  some  of  the  later  and 
more  evangelical  schoolmen;  and  gradually  he  worked  his  way  into  the 
light. 

Luther  was  ordained  priest  on  May  2,  1507.  His  father  was  prevailed 
upon  to  be  present  at  the  ceremony,  which  was  probably  held  at  the  high 
altar  of  the  cathedral.  A  banquet  followed  in  the  evening,  after  the  custom 
of  the  time,  and  Luther  tried  to  draw  from  his  father  some  expression  of 
approval  of  his  course.  "Father,"  said  the  young  monk,  "what  was  the 
reason  of  your  objecting  to  my  desire  to  become  a  monk?  Why  were  you 
so  displeased  then,  and  it  may  be  not  reconciled  yet?  It  is  such  a  peaceful 
and  godly  life  to  live."  The  sturdy  old  man  replied,  "Didst  thou  never 
hear  that  a  son  must  be  obedient  to  his  parents?"  And  then,  turning  to 
the  company  he  continued,  "And  you,  learned  men,  did  you  never  read 
in  the  Scriptures,  Thou  shalt  honor  thy  father  and  mother'?"  "In 
spite  of  this,  the  most  powerful  word  I  ever  heard  out  of  a  human  mouth," 
wrote  the  reformer  in  later  years,  "I  persevered  in  my  own  righteousness, 
and  despised  you  as  being  only  a  man.  .  .  .  Had  I  known,  I  would  have 


10  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

suffered  a  thousand  deaths  rather  than  acted  as  I  did.  For  my  vow  was 
not  worth  such  deception."1 

Ordination  to  the  priesthood  was  but  the  first  step  in  a  rapid  promotion 
of  Luther.  The  next  year  he  was  appointed  to  a  professorship  in  the  new 
university  of  Wittenberg,  an  institution  founded  in  1502  by  Elector 
Frederick  III  of  Saxony,  surnamed  by  his  friends  the  Wise,  by  his  enemies 
the  Fox.  This  new  foundation  was  largely  a  matter  of  family  pride. 
Ducal  Saxony,  at  the  division  of  territory  between  two  sons  (Albert  and 
Ernest)  of  a  former  Saxon  Duke,  had  Leipzig,  and  Electoral  Saxony,  too, 
must  have  its  university.  But  though  Frederick  was  on  learning  bent, 
he  had  a  frugal  mind;  the  new  institution  must  cost  the  least  sum  possible. 
So  he  chose  for  its  home  Wittenberg,  a  little  town  of  three  thousand 
people,  "on  the  confines  of  civilization,"  as  Luther  described  it,  mean  in 
appearance  and  insignificant  among  German  cities.  It  was  not  a  very 
promising  site  for  a  university,  in  most  respects,  but  an  Augustinian 
cloister  was  situate  there,  part  of  which  could  be  used  for  lecture  rooms, 
while  the  brothers  of  the  order  could  furnish  most  of  the  faculty,  notably 
the  faculty  of  theology,  of  which  Staupitz  was  persuaded  to  become  the 
head.  It  was  an  arrangement  that  did  honor  to  the  Elector's  thrift.  In 
this  Augustinian  convent  Luther  now  found  a  home  for  the  rest  of  his  life, 
with  occasional  brief  interruptions  only.  While  it  continued  to  be  a  con- 
vent, he  continued  to  live  in  it  as  a  monk;  afterwards  he  and  his  family 
occupied  it,  by  favor  of  the  Elector,  who  finally  gave  it  to  him. 

The  young  professor,  not  having  as  yet  taken  his  degree  in  theology, 
began  his  work  with  the  nominal  title  of  professor  of  philosophy;  he  lec- 
tured on  the  Dialectics  and  Physics  of  Aristotle,  as  had  been  done  in 
every  university  in  Europe  for  four  hundred  years.  But  it  is  to  be  borne 
in  mind  that  most  of  the  universities  had  been  founded  mainly  with  the 
view  of  promoting  theological  learning,  and  that  a  knowledge  of  Aristotle 
formed  the  indispensable  basis  of  all  theological  training.  It  was  not, 
however,  philosophy  but  theology  that  really  interested  Luther  and  that 
he  actually  taught,  whatever  the  name  of  his  chair.  His  work  at  Witten- 
berg suffered  only  one  interruption  before  the  beginning  of  his  work  as 
reformer:  about  a  year  after  his  appointment  to  the  faculty,  he  was  trans- 
ferred for  a  short  time  to  Erfurt,  and  then  was  sent  to  Rome  on  busi- 
ness in  behalf  of  his  order,  pending  in  the  papal  court.2  This  must  be 

1  Letter  already  cited ;  Currie,  p.  87,  etc. 

2  The  exact  time,  as  well  as  the  length  of  this  journey,  is  unknown  to  us.     We 
only  know  that  it  occurred  between  September  10,  1510,  when  Luther  was  in 
Erfurt,  and  May  8,  1512,  when  he  was  again  in  Wittenberg.     In  a  tract  written 
in  1545,  Luther  speaks  of  being  in  Milan  in  1510,  but  after  so  long  an  interval 
he  might  easily  make  a  mistake  of  a  year  in  his  date.     He  was  surprised  to  find 
the  Ambrosian  rite  practised  at  Milan,  so  that  he  could  not  celebrate.     LDS  32: 
424.     Cf.  Theodor  Elze,  Luther's  Reiae  nach  Rom,  Berlin,  1899;  Hausrath,  Martin 
Luther's  Romfahrt,  Berlin,  1894. 


THE  MAKING  OF  MARTIN  LUTHER  11 

regarded  as  by  all  means  the  most  significant  and  influential  of  all  that 
befel  Luther  during  this  period  of  preparation.  When  we  remember  that 
the  whole  active  life  of  this  man  was  lived  within  a  little  bit  of  Germany, 
not  larger  in  area  than  the  state  of  Rhode  Island,  and  that  on  only  one 
other  occasion  in  his  entire  life  did  he  emerge  from  this  seclusion  into  the 
great  world  and  get  a  glimpse  of  men  and  things  more  than  merely  local 
and  provincial,  we  shall  be  able  to  estimate  this  journey  in  its  true,  epoch- 
making  meaning,  as  regards  his  mental  and  spiritual  development. 

The  journey  was  made  hi  the  company  of  another  monk,  and  on  foot. 
From  scattered  references  to  his  experiences  in  his  Table  Talk  and  later 
writings,  we  are  able  to  reconstruct  his  itinerary,  at  least  so  far  as  to  map 
out  the  general  route  and  name  the  chief  stopping  places.  He  went  by 
way  of  Austria,  as  the  custom  was  being  entertained  at  the  monasteries, 
which  were  to  be  found  every  few  miles  in  any  direction  all  over  Europe — 
at  those  of  his  own  order  by  preference,  at  a  Franciscan  or  Dominican 
convent  in  the  absence  of  his  own.  He  is  most  reminiscent  of  Italy,  and 
we  learn  accordingly  that  he  passed  by  way  of  Padua,  Bologna,  Florence 
and  Siena  to  Rome;  and  after  transacting  his  business  in  that  city,  he 
returned  by  way  of  Milan  and  Switzerland.  Years  afterwards  he  talked 
with  his  friends  of  the  works  of  the  Italian  painters  that  he  saw  at  Flor- 
ence, and  though  he  was  no  student  of  art,  then  or  afterwards,  he  appears 
to  have  appreciated  the  significance  of  what  he  saw  quite  as  well  as  the 
average  traveler  in  Italy  to-day.  Some  of  the  cathedrals  roused  in  him 
emotions  of  wonder  and  awe,  especially  the  great  marble  pile  of  Milan. 
There  is  no  doubt  that  the  value  of  this  tour  to  Luther,  as  part  of  the 
culture  of  mind  and  taste,  was  beyond  computation,  more  to  him  than  a 
whole  year  at  the  best  university  of  his  time  for  the  broadening  of  his 
mind,  his  sympathies,  his  knowledge  even. 

But  it  was  the  spiritual  result  of  this  experience  that  was  of  greatest 
value.  To  it  we  may  directly  trace  his  ultimate  emancipation  from  the 
trammels  of  medieval  superstition,  and  his  progress  into  a  clearer  appre- 
hension of  the  gospel  teaching.  At  first  he  was  full  of  what  he  supposed 
to  be  pure  religious  emotion.  When  he  approached  the  city  and  obtained 
his  first  view  of  it,  he  fell  on  his  knees  and  exclaimed,  "Hail,  holy  Rome!" 
In  the  city  he  went  from  shrine  to  shrine,  and  visited  all  the  holy  places. 
"  I  too  was  at  Rome  like  a  dead  saint,  running  through  all  the  churches 
and  crypts,  believing  all  the  lies  that  were  told,  with  all  their  stench." 
He  said  masses  in  the  churches  at  every  opportunity,  and  lamented  that 
his  father  and  mother  were  not  already  dead,  that  he  might  avail  himself 
of  the  indulgences  everywhere  offered  to  get  them  out  of  purgatory.  A 
special  indulgence  was  promised  then  as  now  to  all  who  should  ascend  on 
their  knees  the  Santa  Scala,  which  tradition  says  was  the  marble  staircase 


12  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

in  Pilate's  palace,  which  our  Lord  ascended  when  brought  before  the 
Roman  procurator.  Luther  duly  attempted  the  task,  but  halfway  up 
there  flashed  through  his  mind  the  words,  "The  just  shall  live  by  faith," 
and  for  the  first  tune  he  fully  apprehended  their  meaning.  He  rose  to  his 
feet  and  walked  back  down  the  stairs  and  out,  for  the  first  time  in  his  life 
knowing  what  it  was  to  be  a  free  man,  in  the  Pauline  sense  of  the  word.1 

Still,  we  must  not  imagine  that  Luther  was  fully  conscious  of  what  was 
taking  place  in  him.  He  was  disturbed  by  what  he  saw  and  heard  in 
Rome,  but  his  faith  in  the  Church  and  its  system  was  not  at  that  time 
seriously  affected.  He  was  receiving  impressions  that  were  to  have  great 
weight  with  him  later,  as  he  himself  testifies:  "I  would  not  have  missed 
seeing  Rome  for  a  hundred  thousand  gulden;  for  I  might  have  felt  some 
apprehension  that  I  had  done  injustice  to  the  Pope  .  .  .  but  as  we  see,  so 
we  speak.  "2  The  unbelief,  levity  and  immorality  of  the  priests  whom  he 
met  shocked  him;  and  all  that  he  saw  and  heard  convinced  him  that  the 
common  saying  was  true,  "If  there  was  a  hell,  Rome  was  built  on  it." 
Julius  II,  the  Pope  of  this  day,  was  absent  from  the  city  and  Luther  prob- 
ably did  not  see  him,  but  he  saw  more  than  enough  of  cardinals  and  prel- 
ates who  led  scandalous  lives.  The  highest  dignitaries  jested  about  the 
holiest  things;  he  saw  priests  performing  the  mass  in  indecent  haste,  and 
perverting  the  very  words  of  consecration;  he  saw  the  greed,  the  luxury, 
the  venality,  the  ill-concealed  infidelity  of  high  and  low  in  the  Church. 
But  yet  he  saw  as  one  who  does  not  see;3  only  later  did  the  full  significance 
of  it  come  home  to  him. 

Returning  to  Wittenberg,  Luther  took  the  degree  of  Doctor  of  Theology 
and  entered  upon  the  real  work  of  his  life.  He  shrank  from  the  respon- 
sibility of  lecturing  on  the  Scriptures,  and  of  preaching,  for  with  all  his 
later  self-sufficiency,  he  appears  in  his  youth  to  have  suffered  from  extreme 
diffidence  of  his  own  powers  and  qualifications.  In  after  years  he  showed 
his  friends  a  pear  tree  in  the  garden  where  he  debated  the  matter  with 
Staupitz,  who  wished  him  to  take  the  chair  that  the  general  had  hitherto 
held  in  the  university  and  become  the  head  of  the  theological  faculty. 
Luther  objected  that  he  was  too  young  to  be  a  Doctor;  the  reply  was  that 
God  needed  young  and  vigorous  Doctors.  But  he  was  sickly  and  the 

1  This  incident  is  first  related  by  G.  Mylius,  in  an  exposition  of  Romans,  pub- 
lished at  Jena  in  1595;  but  he  says  that  he  had  it  from  an  autograph  MS.  of  the  re- 
former's son,  Dr.  Paul  Luther,  who  had  heard  his  father  relate  the  story  in  the 
year  1544.     Kdstlin,  1:  98,  749. 

2  Tischreden,   No.   2964.     This  he  repeated   with  much  emphasis  on   several 
occasions.     The  entire  account  of  his  Italian  experience  is  most  interesting.     Of 
the  many  references  to  them  in  later  years,  the  following  are  the  most  significant: 
LDS,  31:  327;  40:  284. 

3  Not  only  did  Luther's  visit  to  Rome  have  little  immediate  effect  on  him,  but 
he  seems  to  have  been  especially  insensible  to  the  spirit  of  freedom  and  the  love 
of  beauty  in  its  intellectual  life.     He  could  only  feel  the  moral  poverty  of  the 
«ity.     See  Hausrath,  Martin  Luther's  Romfahrt,  p.  33. 


THE  MAKING  OF  MARTIN  LUTHER  13 

burden  would  kill  him  in  a  year.  "Very  well  then,  in  God's  name/' 
answered  Staupitz,  "the  Lord  has  large  affairs  in  hand  and  he  needs  wise 
men  up  yonder. "  He  was  too  poor,  and  could  not  pay  the  expenses  of 
the  new  degree;  the  Elector  had  offered  to  pay  for  him.1  Only  the  Holy 
Ghost  could  make  a  Doctor  of  Divinity;  he  need  not  trouble  himself 
about  that — it  was  his  duty  to  obey  his  superior,  and  his  superior  com- 
manded him  to  be  a  Doctor.  After  that  there  was  nothing  more  to  be 
said;  it  became  to  him  a  call  from  God.  But  this  entrance  on  a  new  career 
brought  him  into  perplexities  and  anxieties  of  all  kinds.  He  afterwards 
said,  "Had  I  known  what  I  now  know,  not  ten  horses  could  have  dragged 
me  to  it." 

The  new  degree  freed  Luther  from  all  restrictions,  and  gave  him  the 
right  to  teach  theology  openly.  Besides  adding  weight  to  his  words  with 
others,  it  gave  him  the  strength  that  comes  to  every  man  from  the  con- 
sciousness that  he  has  the  recognized  right  to  teach.  The  Doctor's  oath 
then  required  all  candidates  to  defend  the  truth  of  the  Gospel,  and  to 
refrain  from  teaching  doctrines  condemned  by  the  Church  and  offensive 
to  pious  ears.  This  oath  was  not  to  him  a  mere  formality;  in  his  pro- 
foundly serious  way,  he  put  his  heart  into  every  word  of  it.  It  made  an 
ineradicable  impression  on  his  mind;  it  was  his  warrant  and  justification 
when  he  saw  the  strife  and  confusion  that  his  teaching  produced — it  was 
his  oath  that  constrained  him  to  speak;  he  could  not  innocently  remain 
silent.  Nearly  twenty  years  after  he  received  his  degree  he  wrote,  "But 
I,  Martin  Luther,  am  thereunto  called  and  forced,  that  I  must  become  a 
Doctor  without  my  thanks,  from  pure  obedience;  then  I  had  to  take  the 
Doctor's  office,  and  I  swear  and  vow  by  my  best  beloved  Scriptures  to 
preach  and  teach  truly  and  purely.  In  such  teaching  the  papacy  fell  in 
my  way  and  would  keep  me  from  it."2  Even  the  papacy  could  not 
be  permitted  to  stand  against  his  oath. 

Nearly  all  teachers  who  have  made  their  mark  upon  the  world  have 
begun  young.  Those  who  have  called  them  to  the  office  of  teacher  have 
not  waited  until  they  became  deeply  learned  in  the  science  they  were 
expected  to  teach,  wisely  content  with  general  qualifications,  knowing 
that  the  acquisition  of  special  knowledge  by  a  man  of  earnestness  and 
power  is  only  a  matter  of  time.  The  young  Doctor  Martin  was  not  yet, 
it  may  be,  a  great  theologian,  but  he  was  a  great  teacher.  He  began  his 
lectures  with  the  Psalms,  and  we  still  possess  his  manuscript  notes  of  the 
lectures,  of  no  great  exegetical  value  now,  to  be  sure,  but  witnessing  to  his 

1  As  a  monk,  Luther  had  no  money  of  his  own,  and  his  order  may  have  had  no 
funds  that  could  be  properly  used  for  such  a  purpose.  A  receipt  is  extant  in 
Luther's  own  handwriting,  in  which  he  acknowledges  the  Elector's  generosity 
in  his  behalf.  De  Wette,  1:  11. 

2LDS,  39:256. 


14  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

industry  in  the  prosecution  of  his  studies.  He  now  began  to  study  seri- 
ously the  original  languages1  and  texts  of  the  Scriptures,  no  longer  content 
with  the  Vulgate,  though  that  of  necessity  continued  for  some  time  to  be 
the  basis  of  his  actual  work. 

Soon  Luther  began  to  lecture  on  the  epistles,  especially  Romans  and 
Galatians.2  These  writings  he  so  explained  that  a  new  light  of  doctrine 
seemed,  after  a  long  dark  night,  to  rise.  He  showed  the  difference  between 
the  law  and  the  gospel,  between  salvation  by  works  and  salvation  by 
faith.  He  recalled  the  minds  of  men  to  Christ,  and,  like  another  Baptist, 
pointed  out  the  Lamb  of  God  who  takes  away  the  sins  of  the  world.  It 
is  thus  that  Melanchthon  describes  him,3  looking  back  and  recalling  his 
work  after  his  death;  and  this  summary  of  his  work  as  a  theological  lec- 
turer is  shown  to  be  accurate  by  the  writings  that  he  produced  during 
the  years  from  1512  to  1517.  This  was  the  busiest,  and  in  some  respects 
the  happiest,  part  of  Luther's  life.  He  had  no  idea  of  winning  distinction 
outside  of  his  limited  Wittenberg  sphere.  Not  ambition,  but  a  sense  of 
daily  duty,  inspired  him  and  kept  him  faithful  to  his  numerous  tasks.  In 
a  letter  to  his  friend  Lange,  under  date  of  October  26,  1516,  he  says:  "I 
have  almost  continuously  need  of  two  secretaries;  for  I  do  nothing  else  all 
day  long  but  write  letters.  I  am  preacher  to  the  convent;  I  read  prayers 
at  table;  I  am  pastor  and  parish  minister,  director  of  studies,  the  prior's 
vicar,  inspector  of  the  fish-ponds  of  Litzkau,  counsel  to  the  inns  of  Herz- 
berg  at  Torgau,  lecturer  on  St.  Paul,  and  commentator  on  the  Psalms. " 
He  says  that  he  had  rarely  time  to  repeat  the  prescribed  daily  prayers,  or 
to  sing  a  hymn.4 

Luther  could  not  at  once  free  himself  from  traditional  methods  of 
thinking  and  feeling.  Indeed,  in  many  respects  he  never  did  escape  from 
the  past.  All  his  life,  to  some  extent  at  least,  he  followed  the  example  of 
the  allegorical  expositors,  and  often  gave  fanciful  interpretations  of 
Scripture.  But  from  the  first  his  leaning  was  toward  that  which  was  best 
and  most  spiritual  in  the  Church.  His  natural  disposition,  as  well  as  his 
personal  experience,  inclined  him  toward  the  mystics.  Their  notions  of 
the  reality  of  communion  with  God,  their  yearning  for  a  complete  sub- 
mission to  God's  will,  their  subordination  of  form  to  spirit  in  worship  and 
service — all  exactly  corresponded  with  his  own  sense  of  the  fitness  of 

1  Yet  his  attainments  must  have  been  very  slight  at  this  time,  for  so  late  as 
February  18,  1518,  he  confesses  to  his  friend  Lange  that  he  cannot  write  the  Greek 
characters.     De  Wette,   1:  34.     He  had,  however,  acquired  a  great  knowledge 
of  the  content  of  Scripture  and  could  turn  to  any  text.     Tischreden,  No.  76. 

2  The  lectures  on  Galatians  were  published  by  Luther  in  1519,  but  those  on 
Romans  remained  in  MS.  and  were  long  lost  sight  of,  but  were  discovered  and  pub- 
lished in  1908,  and  have  contributed  much  to  our  knowledge  of  the  reformer's 
early  development. 

3  CR  6:  160. 

4Currie,  p.  10;  De  Wette,  2:  41. 


THE  MAKING  OF  MARTIN  LUTHER  15 

things.  He  saw  in  John  Tauler,  the  great  mystic  preacher  of  Strassburg, 
almost  a  model  theologian.  He  published  (and  it  was  his  first  publica- 
tion) the  "German  Theology/'1  which  he  supposed  to  have  been  written 
by  Tauler,  saying  of  it:  "I  have  not  come  across  a  book,  next  to  the 
Scriptures  and  St.  Austin,  from  which  I  have  learned  and  shall  learn  more 
about  God,  Christ,  man  and  all  things."  The  book  was  a  revelation  to 
him.  Working  alone,  and  in  comparative  seclusion,  he  had  felt  that  his 
views  were  singular;  and  it  was  with  a  kind  of  pleased  surprise  that  he 
found  they  had  been  taught  by  predecessors.  He  sent  the  little  book  to 
his  friend  Spalatin,  as  a  specimen  of  "pure,  solid,  ancient  theology/'  and 
he  several  times  quotes  it  in  his  sermons  of  that  time.  ,. 

But  while  in  feeling  and  sentiment  he  was  a  mystic,  in  theology  Luther 
was  a  follower  of  Augustine.  In  1516,  at  Wittenberg,  he  presided  at  the 
discussion  of  certain  theses  in  which  Augustine's  central  doctrines  were 
defended.  These  theses  were,  in  substance,  taken  from  his  own  lectures. 
They  teach  the  helplessness  of  the  human  will,  and  man's  absolute 
dependence  on  the  grace  of  God:  "Man,  the  grace  of  God  excluded,  can 
by  no  means  keep  God's  commandment,  neither  can  he  prepare  himself 
for  grace,  either  from  congruity  or  condignity;  but  necessarily  remains 
in  sin."  "The  will  of  man,  without  grace,  is  not  free,  but  is  enslaved 
though  not  willingly. "  The  same  doctrine  he  taught  in  a  fragment  of  one 
of  his  lectures,  now  extant.  He  was  an  Augustinian,  or,  as  we  now  say,  a 
Calvinist.  In  order  to  understand  the  importance  of  this  fact,  we  must 
bear  in  mind  that  certain  theological  opinions  have  a  dominating  influence. 
They  do  not  stand  alone,  but  determine  the  attitude  of  those  who  hold 
them  to  other  associated  opinions.  Luther's  Augustinian  theology,  there- 
fore, long  before  his  controversy  with  the  papacy  began,  separated  him 
from  that  phase  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Church  with  which  Augustin- 
ianism  was  incompatible.  And  in  his  day  the  trend  of  Catholic  doctrine 
and  practice  was,  as  it  long  had  been,  away  from  Augustine. 

Some  men  are  mystics  by  nature,  and  a  man  might  be  an  Augustinian 
in  one  age  as  well  as  in  another;  and  there  is  no  reason  why,  in  any  age, 
both  types  of  Christian  doctrine  might  not  be  united  in  the  same  man. 
St.  Bernard,  in  the  twelfth  century,  furnishes  an  example  of  such  com- 
bination; Pascal,  in  the  seventeenth  century,  furnishes  another.  It  was 
nothing,  therefore,  in  his  environment  that  made  Luther  either  a  mystic 
or  an  Augustinian.  The  same  cannot  be  said  of  his  antagonism  to  Aristotle 
and  the  scholastic  theology.  It  was  no  mere  natural  antipathy  that  made 
him  write  letters,  as  he  said,  "full  of  blasphemies  and  curses  against 
Aristotle  and  Porphyry  and  the  sententiaries, "  or  that  made  him  speak 

1  A  first  edition,  in  December,  1516,  was  from  an  imperfect  MS.,  and  a  more 
complete  edition  followed  in  1518. 


16  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

of  Aristotle  as  "that  actor,  who,  in  his  Greek  mask,  has  deceived  the 
Church";  or  that  made  him  say,  "If  Aristotle  had  not  been  flesh,  I  would 
not  hesitate  to  say  that  he  was  the  devil."1  No  one  could  write  in  that 
way  of  an  ancient  philosopher  unless  he  had  a  personal  grievance.  Luther 
had  a  grievance,  and  he  was  not  alone  in  being  tired  of  Aristotle.  There 
was  a  widespread  feeling  that  the  world  had  had  too  much  of  him.  This 
feeling  was  symptomatic;  it  was  such  a  feeling  as  men  always  have  when 
they  are  beginning  to  shake  themselves  loose  from  old  and  long-reigning 
modes  of  thought.  They  will  not  only  abandon  them,  but  abandon  them 
with  contempt  and  indignation.  How  often  has  the  world,  conscious  of 
its  woes,  hailed  some  new  light  as  a  morning  star  that  was  to  usher  in  the 
longed-for  day;  watched  it  with  eager  eyes,  and  followed  it  with  patient 
feet,  until,  at  last,  convinced  that  it  is  only  some  wanderer  moving  in  a 
narrow  earth  orbit,  men  have  turned  away  from  it  in  the  bitterness  of 
despair.  To  the  Middle  Ages  Aristotle  was  such  a  light. 

The  explanation  of  Aristotle's  great  influence  on  the  medieval  Church 
is  not  far  to  seek.  It  is  accounted  for  by  the  fact  that  he  was  and  is  and 
always  is  to  be  the  great  expounder  of  the  laws  of  thought.  It  has  been 
more  than  two  thousand  years  since  he  wrote,  and  no  essential  point  in 
this  teaching  has  been  impeached  and  no  really  fruitful  addition  to  his 
work  has  been  made.  Now  it  is  one  of  the  constantly  recurring  illusions 
of  men  that,  if  they  only  had  the  right  method  of  reasoning  and  investi- 
gation, they  might  ascertain  and  demonstrate  all  truth.  Aristotle  was 
supposed  to  have  furnished  that  method.  By  analysis  and  synthesis,  by 
induction  and  deduction,  by  the  magic  power  of  the  syllogism,  all  things 
were  to  be  revealed.  But  gradually  the  medieval  world  came  to  accept 
and  apply  only  one  part  of  the  Aristotelian  method,  deduction.  Starting 
from  universally  accepted  principles,  the  theologian  exercised  his  ingenu- 
ity in  deducing  from  those  principles  whatever  might  be  logically  inferred 
from  them,  and  these  inferences  were  held  to  be  demonstrated  truths. 

Luther  had  been  trained  in  this  method  and  was  thoroughly  familiar 
with  its  results.  From  the  beginning  of  his  career  as  a  teacher  he  began 
to  break  away  from  the  influence  of  Aristotle,  and  came  to  repudiate  the 
scholastic  method  and  its  results  with  all  the  energy  of  his  intense  nature, 
and  to  contend  against  both  with  the  full  vigor  of  a  vocabulary  peculiarly 
rich  in  terms  of  opprobrium.  Not  Aristotle,  but  Paul,  he  contended, 
should  be  the  philosopher  of  Christians;  but  he  meant:  Paul  as  interpreted 
by  Augustine.  In  his  early  monastic  life  he  had  put  all  his  confidence  in 
his  own  good  deeds — his  austerities,  his  prayers,  his  devout  reception  of 
the  sacraments — now  he  came  to  believe  that  man  has  nothing  at  all  to 
do  in  the  work  of  salvation;  all  is  of  God's  grace.  Man  has  been  so  cor- 

letter  to  John  Lange,  February  8,  1516.     De  Wette,  1:  15. 


THE  MAKING  OF  MARTIN  LUTHER  17 

rupted  by  sin  that  he  has  no  freedom  of  will,  and  all  his  actions  are  the 
emanations  of  a  corrupt  nature,  and  therefore  in  God's  sight  are  neither 
more  nor  less  than  sin.  We  are  justified  in  the  sight  of  God  only  through 
faith  in  Christ,  whose  atoning  work  is  thus  appropriated  by  us,  so  that 
his  righteousness  becomes  ours.  Luther  could  see  no  possibility  of  the 
forgiveness  of  sins  save  in  this  way,  but  through  faith  the  possibilities  of 
forgiveness  became  boundless:  "We  put  on  the  garment  of  his  righteous- 
ness, which  covers  our  guilt  and  our  condition  of  perpetual  sinfulness, 
and  furthermore  makes  up  in  superfluity  for  all  human  shortcomings; 
hence,  when  we  believe,  we  need  be  no  longer  tormented  in  our  con- 
sciences."1 Luther's  doctrine  of  justification  often  came  perilously  near 
to  antinomianism:  "Be  a  sinner,  and  sin  right  boldly,  but  believe  still 
more  boldly  and  rejoice  in  Christ,  who  is  the  vanquisher  of  sin.  .  .  .  From 
the  Lamb  that  takes  away  the  sin  of  the  world|  sin  will  not  separate  men, 
even  though  they  should  commit  fornication  a  thousand  times  a  day  and 
murders  as  frequently."2  Though  these  words  admit  of  an  explana- 
tion that  makes  them  true,  they  might  easily  be  taken  by  a  careless  reader 
as  an  encouragement  to  persevere  in  a  life  of  outrageous  sin,  secure  in  the 
faith  that  justifies!  And  if  Luther  did  not  in  these  early  years  go  to  his 
most  indefensible  extremes  of  statement,  his  teaching  was  already  con- 
sidered of  doubtful  orthodoxy  and  of  still  more  doubtful  propriety.  In 
July,  1517,  several  months  before  the  beginning  of  the  controversy  on 
indulgences,  he  preached  at  Dresden,  by  invitation  of  Duke  George  of 
Saxony,  and  insisted  in  his  sermon  that  the  mere  acceptance  of  the  merits 
of  Christ  insured  salvation,  and  that  nobody  who  possessed  this  faith 
need  doubt  his  own  salvation.  The  Duke  said  afterwards  at  table  that 
"he  would  give  a  great  deal  not  to  have  heard  this  sermon,  which  would 
only  make  the  people  presumptuous  and  mutinous. " 

In  the  nine  years  in  which  he  continued  his  professorial  work  at  Witten- 
berg, Luther  was  constantly  gaining  in  the  esteem  of  his  colleagues  and 
of  the  town,  but  he  cannot  be  said  to  have  made  much  of  a  reputation 
elsewhere,  save  possibly  at  Erfurt.  At  the  same  time  he  was  advancing 
in  his  order,  and  was  in  a  fair  way  to  stand  one  day  at  its  head.  In  1515 
he  was  made  provincial  vicar,  and  was  required  to  superintend  eleven 
convents.  Next  year  he  made  a  visitation  of  them,  and  set  them  in  order 
with  a  mixture  of  kindness  and  firmness  that  won  for  him  both  respect 

1  "  God  can  not  see  in  us  any  sin,  though  we  are  full  of  sin,  .  .  .  but  he  sees  only 
the  dear  and  precious  blood  of  his  beloved  Son,  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  wherewith 
we  are  sprinkled.  For  this  same  blood  is  the  golden  garment  of  grace  that  we 
have  put  on,  and  clothed  with  which  we  appear  before  God,  so  that  he  will  not 
and  cannot  look  upon  us  differently  than  though  we  were  his  own  dear  Son  him- 
self, full  of  justice,  holiness  and  innocence."  Walch  (Halle)  8:  878. 

2Esto  peccator  et  pecca  fortiter,  sed  fortius  fide  et  gaude  in  Christo,  qui  victor  est 
peccati,  mortis  et  mundi;  peccandum  est,  guam  diu  sic  sumus,  etc.  De  Wette,  2 :  37. 


18  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

and  praise.  In  December,  1516,  he  issued  his  first  original  book,  a  little 
treatise  on  the  seven  penitential  Psalms,  of  no  great  significance,  save  for 
the  fact  that  it  gives  emphasis  to  his  growing  esteem  for  the  Scriptures, 
and  his  increasing  tendency  to  make  their  study  and  exposition  the  great 
work  of  his  life. 

We  have  followed  Luther  to  the  point  where  he  stands  just  at  the 
entrance  of  his  larger  public  career;  his  next  step  will  implicate  him  in  a 
contest  in  which  he  will  have  all  Europe  as  spectators.  As  we  look  upon 
him,  he  is  an  earnest-minded,  religious  man;  his  learning  is  varied,  but 
not  profound  or  accurate.  Circumstances,  however,  have  led  him  to  give 
special  attention  to  the  questions  that  will  be  involved  in  the  coming 
controversy.  They  have  come  to  him  as  a  matter  of  personal  experience; 
he  has  painfully  thought  them  through  and  understands  them.  Besides, 
he  has  felt  the  influence  of  the  new  age;  he  is  in  revolt  against  old  methods 
and  authorities,  and  has  conceived  a  passionate  love  for  another  author- 
ity, the  Bible.  He  is  prepared  to  be  the  leader  of  a  great  movement,  and 
thousands  unknown  to  him  and  to  each  other  are  ready  to  be  led.  But 
nothing  of  this  appears  on  the  surface;  least  of  all  do  men  suspect,  or  does 
Luther  himself  suspect,  that  he  is  about  to  burst  into  world-wide  notori- 
ety. He  is  diligent  in  the  duties  immediately  before  him,  but  the  sphere 
of  his  labors  is  narrow,  and  his  acquaintances  are  few.  His  friends  are, 
for  the  most  part,  the  young  men  whom  he  met  at  school  and  the  univer- 
sity, monks,  teachers,  parish  priests  and  professors.  Among  them  are, 
however,  three  men  of  mark. 

The  first,  Staupitz,  we  already  know  as  Luther's  superior  in  the  Augus- 
tinian  order,  his  instructor  and  comforter  in  hours  of  darkness,  the  man 
who  had  discerned  his  abilities  and  brought  him  forward  as  a  teacher  at 
Wittenberg.  Staupitz  is  one  of  the  most  interesting  personalities  of  the 
period,  less  known  to  modern  readers  than  he  deserves  to  be.  A  man  of 
noble  lineage,  he  entered  the  Augustinian  order  an  an  early  age,  and 
became  head  of  the  German  province  in  1503.  Before  this  he  had  won 
recognition  as  a  man  of  light  and  leading,  and  by  his  independent  study 
of  the  Scriptures  had  come  to  the  adoption  of  those  theological  views  that 
are  now  identified  with  the  name  of  Luther,  who  had  small  gifts  for  spec- 
ulation and  derived  from  this  source  nearly  his  whole  stock  of  theological 
ideas,  standing  in  the  same  relation  intellectually  and  spiritually  to  Staupitz 
that  Hus  occupies  with  regard  to  Wiclif,  namely,  in  the  place  of  pupil  and 
follower.1  His  general  recommended  to  Luther  the  study  of  the  Scriptures, 
and  later  the  works  of  Augustine,  and  was  the  main  agent  in  developing 

1  Keller,  Johann  von  Staupitz  und  die  Anf tinge  der  Reformation,  Leipzig,  1888, 
Especially  the  chapter  on  Die  Entwickclung  der  lutherischen  Theologie  und  Kirche. 
130-167. 


THE  MAKING  OF  MARTIN  LUTHER  19 

those  ideas  of  the  bondage  of  the  will,  of  the  supreme  grace  of  God  in 
man's  salvation,  of  justification  through  the  merits  of  Christ  appropri- 
ated by  means  of  the  believer's  faith,  quite  apart  from  all  works  of  the 
law,  which  formed  the  burden  of  Luther's  teaching  even  before  1517,  and 
continued  to  the  end  of  his  life  to  be  what  he  understood  by  the  Gospel. 
Indeed,  so  much  more  prominent  was  Staupitz  than  Luther  in  what  may 
be  called  the  evangelical  circles  of  Germany,  that  many  looked  to  him  as 
most  likely  to  lead  in  a  movement  for  the  purification  of  the  Church. 

A  second  friend  was  George  Burckhardt,  commonly  called  Spalatin,  a 
fellow  student  of  Luther's  at  Erfurt,  where,  however,  they  did  not  become 
intimate.  Spalatin  was  ordained  priest  in  1507,  the  same  year  as  Luther, 
and  in  1512  received  an  appointment  in  the  household  of  Frederick  the 
Wise,  ultimately  becoming  the  Elector's  chaplain  and  private  secretary, 
enjoying  his  complete  confidence  and  transacting  for  him  much  of  his 
private  business.  His  intimacy  with  Luther  began  soon  after  1512, 
when  the  Elector  sent  his  two  nephews  to  the  university  at  Witten- 
berg, and  Spalatin  with  them  as  tutor  and  mentor.  Together  the 
three  sat  for  a  time  in  Luther's  lecture-room,  and  Spalatin  became  the 
warm  friend  of  the  young  professor.  Through  his  relations  thus  with 
the  reformers  at  Wittenberg  on  the  one  hand,  and  with  the  Elector  on 
the  other,  Spalatin  was  able  to  exercise  a  great  influence  on  the  progress 
of  the  Reformation,  but  he  seems  loyally  to  have  effaced  himself,  and  to 
have  done  his  best  to  serve  both  his  friends  and  his  prince,  with  very 
marked  success. 

The  third  friend  was  Elector  Frederick  himself,  now  in  the  fifty-fifth 
year  of  his  age  and  the  twenty-first  of  his  reign,  a  man  of  common  sense, 
probity  and  firmness,  a  prince  of  large  wealth,  and  for  all  these  reasons  the 
most  respected  ruler  in  Germany.  He  was  a  Catholic  by  conviction,  and 
in  1493  he  had  made  a  pilgrimage  to  Jerusalem,  bringing  back  a  collection 
of  no  fewer  than  five  thousand  "relics,"  which  were  duly  deposited  in 
the  Castle  Church  at  Wittenberg.  His  temperament  was  phlegmatic, 
and  he  was  noted  for  caution  and  dislike  of  change.  But  he  was  before 
all  things  else  a  German,  with  strong  national  feelings,  and  he  had  a 
natural  sense  of  justice  and  fair  play.  Moreover,  he  cherished  his  new 
university  as  the  apple  of  his  eye,  though  averse  to  spending  overmuch 
money  on  it,  and  he  took  an  honest  pride  in  its  growing  fame,  and  in  his 
young,  brilliant,  outspoken  theologian. 

Such  was  Luther  up  to  the  year  1517,  and  such  was  his  environment 
and  training.  He  stands  out  before  us  as  a  devout  Catholic,  a  faithful 
monk,  an  earnest  teacher  and  preacher,  supposing  himself  to  be  in  full 
harmony  with  Church  and  Pope,  with  no  slightest  notion  in  his  mind  that 
he  was  a  heretic,  or  in  any  danger  of  becoming  a  heretic,  yet  already 


20  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

cherishing  ideas  that  must  inevitably  have  involved  him  in  ultimate 
conflict  with  the  Church.1  The  hour  for  a  Reformation  was  at  hand  and 
a  leader  was  ready.  Again  the  fulness  of  the  times  was  come,  and  again 
God  sent  forth  a  man. 

1Janssen  (2:  80  seg.)  very  properly  argues  that  before  the  indulgence  question 
came  up,  Luther  had  often  avowed  doctrines  of  grace,  justification  and  bondage 
of  the  will  that  were  contrary  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Roman  Church.  He  quotes 
profusely  from  sermons,  theses,  etc.,  prior  to  November,  1517,  to  show  that  Luther 
was  already  a  heretic.  There  is  as  little  question  that  such  was  the  fact,  as  there 
is  of  Luther's  entire  unconsciousness  of  his  real  relation  to  the  Church. 


CHAPTER  II 

THE   WOLF  IN  THE   SHEEPFOLD 

LUTHER  had  become  by  the  year  1517  the  representative  of  a  phase  of 
thought  that  had  long  existed  in  the  Church.  Since  the  days  of  Augus- 
tine, there  had  been  two  differing  conceptions  of  the  religious  life,  one 
making  prominent  the  inward  and  spiritual,  the  other  the  formal  and 
external.  Indeed,  the  two  conceptions  antedate  Augustine;  they  go  back 
to  the  days  of  Christ,  and  further.  They  belong  to  no  time;  they  are  not 
Protestant  or  Catholic  or  Jewish;  they  are  human.  To-day  these  con- 
ceptions separate  Protestant  from  Protestant  no  less  than  Protestant 
from  Catholic.  Sometimes  one  has  been  stronger,  sometimes  the  other. 
When  there  has  been  nothing  to  bring  them  into  collision  they  have  moved 
on  quietly  side  by  side,  giving  no  intimation  that  they  were  two ;  but  when 
anything  has  occurred  to  quicken  or  intensify  them,  the  difference  be- 
tween them  has  been  clearly  marked.  The  emphasis  of  these  differing 
conceptions  has  always  produced  sharply  defined  parties.  In  the  days  of 
Luther  circumstances  tended  greatly  to  emphasize  them,  and  the  conse- 
quence was  the  rise  of  strong,  bitter,  persistent  antagonisms.  It  is  the 
purpose  of  this  chapter  to  show  how  these  conceptions  came  into  conflict, 
what  new  difficulties  were  reached  during  its  progress,  and  some  of  the 
effects  produced  on  the  course  of  history.  It  is  a  large  subject,  and  if  one 
should  fail  to  treat  it  adequately,  one  may  hope  at  least  to  give  some  hint 
as  to  the  manner  in  which  it  may  be  profitably  studied. 

The  antagonism  began  in  reference  to  a  matter  of  chief  importance: 
the  way  in  which  sins  may  be  forgiven  and  the  soul  saved.  This  was  a 
question  that  concerned  the  Church's  central  office  on  earth.  For,  how- 
ever far  it  came  short  of  its  duty,  the  Church  regarded  itself  as  the  repre- 
sentative of  Christ,  and  the  depositary  of  grace  for  the  salvation  of  men. 
There  were  many  things  that  the  Church  might  do :  it  might  help  the  poor, 
relieve  physical  suffering,  foster  learning,  and  art  and  science,  and  all 
that  is  included  in  the  notion  of  civilization.  But  this  was  incidental,  not 
its  real  business;  its  business  was  with  the  forgiveness  of  sins  and  eternal 
life.  Whatever  did  not  contribute  to  its  chief  end  was  of  minor  concern; 
whatever  made  against  that  must  give  way.  It  was  content  to  be  judged 
by  the  manner  in  which  it  performed  its  one  great  office  in  the  world.  As 
to  what  that  office  was  there  was  no  dispute.  Both  parties  believed  that 

21 


22  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

no  one  could  be  saved  (normally,  at  least)  outside  of  the  Church,  or  without 
its  help.  Both  believed  that  by  baptism  one  was  cleansed  from  the  stain 
-of  original  sin  and  introduced  into  the  kingdom  and  favor  of  God.  In  the 
case  of  adults,  baptism  washed  away  all  sin.  But  what  of  sins  committed 
after  baptism?  Their  remission  was  sought  in  the  sacrament  of 
penance.1 

It  was  in  this  sacrament  of  penance  that  the  Church  came  nearest  to 
the  people  and  exercised  its  greatest  influence  over  them.  In  its  developed 
form,  it  consisted  of  three  parts:  contrition,  confession,  satisfaction.2  The 
first  implied,  if  it  did  not  demand,  a  genuine  sorrow  for  sin  committed; 
the  second  was  followed  by  the  absolution  of  the  priest,  who,  in  forgiving 
the  sin  repented  of  and  confessed,  imposed  the  third.  Satisfaction, 
according  to  Luther,  who  in  this  was  expressing  the  common  opinion, 
consisted  of  prayer,  fasting  and  alms.3  In  this  case,  however,  prayer  was 
a  term  of  wide  import,  including  every  pious  movement  of  the  mind: 
reading  and  preaching  and  meditation  on  the  word  of  God,  as  well  as 
devotion,  aspiration,  supplication,  and  those  exercises  of  the  heart  that 
the  word  "prayer"  usually  suggests.  Fasting  was  not  merely  abstinence 
from  food;  it  included  all  afflictive  works  of  the  flesh:  vigils,  labors,  hard- 
ness of  living,  pilgrimages,  all  works  of  humiliation  and  mortification. 
Alms  stood  for  all  works  of  love  and  compassion  toward  our  neighbors. 
Following  the  hints  that  Luther  gives,  we  might  crowd  into  the  word 
41  satisfaction"  all  the  meaning  that  it  ever  conveyed  to  the  tenderest  and 
most  afflicted  conscience.  On  the  other  hand,  a  man  who  thought  lightly 
of  his  sins  would  think  lightly  of  satisfaction.  There  was  danger  that 
while  some  might  discipline  themselves  with  absurd  levity,  others  might 
go  to  the  extreme  of  severity,  and  after  the  most  fervent  and  long- 
continued  prayer,  the  deepest  humiliations,  and  boundless  charity,  would 
still  carry  an  overburdened  conscience.  This  danger  was  avoided  by 
committing  the  whole  matter  of  satisfaction  to  the  judgment  of  the  priest. 
He  enjoined  what  the  penitent  was  to  do,  and  the  advice  of  the  priest  was 
the  command  of  the  Church.  If  men  came  to  feel  that  God  required  exactly 
what  the  priest  enjoined,  no  more  and  no  less,  there  would  be  nothing 
strange  in  such  conclusion. 

The  sacrament  of  \penance  was  a  growth,  the  slow  development  of 
centuries,  and  there  was  no  part  of  it  about  which  there  were  not  differ- 

1  A  scholarly  exposition  of  the  Catholic  doctrine  of  penance  and  indulgences, 
from  the  modern  Lutheran  point  of  view,  is  given  by  Dieckhoff,  DerAblassstreit, 
dogmengeschichtlich  dargestellt,  Gotha,  1886,  pp.  10-25. 

2  The  three  parts  of  penance,  according  to  the  scholastic  theologians,  were  con- 
tritio  cordis,  confessio  oris,  satisfactio  operis. 

3  ^Satisfactio  dividetur  in  orationem,  jejunium,  et  eleemosynum,  ubi  oratio  omnem 
animi  motum,  et  actionem  in  se  complectitus  ad  animam  proprie  attinentem,  etc. 
Sermon  de  Indulgentiis,  1518.     LOL.  2:  326. 


THE  WOLF  IN  THE  SHEEPFOLD  23 

ing  opinions.  All  agreed  that  there  must  be  contrition,  but  how  much 
or  how  little  would  suffice  no  one  could  definitely  say.  Some  thought 
that  not  even  contrition,  but  attrition,  the  simple  wish  to  be  contrite, 
would  be  enough;  the  wish  to  be  contrite  was  rewarded  with  the  grace 
of  contrition,  if  a  man  put  no  obstacle  in  the  way  of  grace.  Others 
required  the  profoundest  depths  of  sorrow.  As  to  confession,  some  sup- 
posed that  it  was  enough  to  confess  to  God  alone;  others  thought  that 
confession  to  a  layman  would  suffice,  while  others  again  thought  that, 
as  penance  is  a  sacrament,  the  confession  must  be  made  to  a  priest.1 
Some  thought  that  only  mortal  sins  were  to  be  confessed;  others  required 
the  confession  of  all  sins,  open,  secret,  mortal  and  venial.  At  first  the 
absolution  of  the  priest  was  a  simple  prayer  that  God  would  forgive; 
at  last  it  was  a  positive  declaration  of  forgiveness.  Some  thought  that 
the  priest  only  forgave  the  guilt  of  sin,  others  that  he  also  remitted  the 
penalty.  In  the  same  way  there  was  no  agreement  as  to  the  office  and 
use  of  satisfaction.  Everywhere  and  always  when  men  thought  at  all 
about  these  things,  they  did  not  all  think  alike;  but  the  constant  tendency 
was  to  give  prominence  to  the  priest,  and  what  the  priest  did.2 

Satisfaction  was  the  particular  part  of  penance  that  gave  occasion  for 
the  controversy  between  Luther  and  his  opponents.  In  no  developed 
practice  of  the  Church  do  we  have  a  better  example  of  how  a  simple  and 
reasonable  requirement  may  grow  away  from  its  original  purpose.  In 
the  early  Church,  when  a  member  was  guilty  of  open  sin,  he  might  be 
formally  excluded  and  treated  as  "a  publican  and  a  heathen. "  But 
as  this  was  believed  to  mean  also  exclusion  from  salvation,  he  was  more 
frequently  suspended  from  communion,  with  the  possibility  and  hope 
of  restoration,  sooner  or  later.  This  restoration  was  to  be  gained  by 
passing  through  several  stages  of  humiliation.  The  discipline  was  a 
test  of  sincerity.  No  one  would  consent  lightly  to  pass  through  it,  and 
those  who  endured  such  a  test  might  well  be  considered  as  having  truly 

1  "Every  day,  once  or  twice,  or  oftener  if  possible,  we  ought  to  confess  our  sins 
to  God.     The  confession  we  make  to  the  priests  brings  this  small  help  to  us,  that 
having  received   wholesome  advice  from   them,   by  obeying  the  most  salutary 
requirements  of  penance  or  by  our  mutual  progress,  we  wash  away  the  stains 
of  our  sins.    The  confession  made  to  God  alone  helps  in  this,  that  the  more  mind- 
ful we  are  of  our  sins,  the  more  God  forgets  them,  and  the  more  we  forget  them, 
the  more  the  Lord  remembers  them."     Theodulph  of  Orleans  (797)  in  Capitulary 
to  his  priests,  c.  30.     The  confession  to  God  secures  the  forgiveness  of  sins;  that 
to  the  priest  shows  how  the  sins  themselves  are  to  be  purged  away.     See  Gieseler, 
2:    106.      Peter  Lombard   (d.   1160)   taught  that  confession  might  be  omitted, 
but,  as  it  was  a  question,  it  would  be  safer  to  have  the  priest,  if  possible. 

2  "This  we  may  safely  say  and  think:  that  God  alone  remits  and  retains  sins 
and  yet  that  he  has  given  the  Church  the  power  of  binding  and  loosing.     But  he 
looses  and  binds  in  one  sense,  the  Church  in  another.     For  he,  by  himself  alone 
remits  sins,  for  he  cleanses  the  soul  from  its  inward  stain,  and  frees  it  from  the 
debt  of  eternal  death.    Such  power  he  has  not  given  to  the  priest,  to  whom  never- 
theless he  has  given  the  power  of  binding  and  loosing,  that  is,  of  showing  that 
men  are  bound  and  loosed."     Peter  Lombard,  Sent.  lib.  iv.  div.  8. 


24  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

repented.1  This  was  the  first  and  most  obvious  meaning  of  what  the 
Church  required.  But  besides,  by  means  of  its  discipline,  it  declared 
and  emphasized  its  condemnation  of  the  penitent's  sin.  In  some  cases  the 
separation  from  communion  was  for  many  years;  in  some  for  life,  or  until 
life  was  about  to  close.  A  great  sin  was  visited  with  a  heavy  penalty; 
the  great  penalty  implied  a  great  sin.  Men  shrank  from  what  the  Church 
condemned,  and  so  was  created  a  Christian  public  opinion.  But  over 
and  above  this,  the  humiliation,  suffering  and  sorrow  of  the  penitent 
were  supposed  to  move  God's  pity,  as  they  certainly  exerted  a  softening 
and  purifying  influence  on  those  who  were  properly  exercised  by  them. 
In  many  ways,  then,  the  satisfaction  required  by  the  early  Church  was 
reasonable  and  effective. 

The  Church  never  lost  sight  of  the  fact  that  what  it  imposed  by  way 
of  discipline  was  in  its  own  hand;  it  was  something  that  the  Church  had 
enjoined  and  that  the  Church  could  remit.  In  the  case  of  the  dying, 
all  penitential  requirements  were  remitted,  and  the  dying  man  was 
received  into  full  communion — months,  even  years  of  penance,  gave  way 
to  mortal  sickness.  Discipline  was  for  the  living,  not  for  the  dying; 
and  the  dying,  in  their  supreme  need,  should  have  the  strength  and 
comfort  that  came  from  the  sympathy  of  fellow-Christians  and  the  sacra- 
ments of  the  Church. 

In  early  times  penitential  works  came  first  and  restoration  to  communion 
afterwards.  In  the  later  Church  the  order  was  reversed.  There  was 
a  reason  for  this:  the  whole  community  had  become  Christian,  and 
excommunication  now  carried  with  it  social,  political  and  business 
disabilities.  As  its  consequences  were  so  serious,  it  was  resorted  to 
only  in  extreme  cases.  There  was  still  the  feeling  that  confession  and 
humiliation  were  due  to  God  for  sin — penitential  works  were  still  re- 
quired— but  the  old  place  for  them  was  taken  away.  When  the  Church 
no  longer  thought  it  proper  to  separate  offenders  from  communion, 
another  place  must  be  provided;  and  as  the  confessing  penitent  received 
immediate  absolution,  he  must  "do  penance"  afterwards.  In  the  old 
times  this  penance — the  prayers,  fasts,  vigils,  lamentations — had  refer- 
ence to  readmission  to  the  Church;  but  now  that  the  penitent  had  con- 

1  We  have  in  Tertullian's  De  Pudicitia  a  striking  description  of  public  penance 
in  his  day:  "Why  do  you  yourself,  when  introducing  the  repentant  adulterer  into 
the  Church  for  the  purpose  of  melting  the  brotherhood  by  his  prayers,  lead  him 
into  the  midst  and  prostrate  him,  all  in  haircloth  and  ashes,  a  compound  of  dis- 
grace and  horror,  before  the  widows,  before  the  elders,  suing  for  the  tears  of  all, 
licking  the  footprints  of  all,  clasping  the  knees  of  all"  (ch.  xiii).  Jerome  tells 
us  of  the  case  of  Fabiola,  who  put  away  her  husband  and  then  married  again, 
supposing  that  she  had  a  right  to  do  so.  On  her  fault  being  made  clear  to  her, 
"she  put  on  sackcloth  to  make  public  confession  of  her  error  .  .  .  stood  in  the 
ranks  of  penitents  and  exposed  before  bishop,  presbyters  and  people — all  of 
whom  wept  when  they  saw  her — her  dishevelled  hair,  pale  features,  soiled  hands 
and  unwashed  neck."  Ep.  77:  4. 


THE  WOLF  IN  THE  SHEEPFOLD  25 

fessed  and  been  absolved,  what  did  these  things  mean?  They  were 
works  of  satisfaction.  They  had  nothing  to  do  with  remission  of  sin; 
guilt  and  condemnation  were  removed  by  the  priest's  absolution.  But 
even  after  the  sin  had  been  forgiven,  the  sinner  was  not  yet  free  from 
some  measure  of  suffering,  the  penalty  of  sin.  The  penalty  must  be 
paid  in  this  life  or  in  purgatory.  Until  it  had  been  paid,  the  soul  could 
not  enter  heaven.  The  works  of  satisfaction  were  the  paying  of  the 
penalty.1 

Thus  it  was  that,  hi  the  gradual  ujifolding  of  time  the  just  and  reason- 
able works  meet  for  repentance  became  satisfaction,  the  third  part  of 
the  sacrament  of  penance.  But  how  did  the  Church  look  upon  the  works 
of  satisfaction  imposed  by  the  priest?  The  great  majority  felt  that  some- 
thing was  required  by  way  of  penalty  for  sin.  What  that  something  was, 
or  what  would  be  its  equivalent,  the  priest  imposed;  in  his  judgment,  so 
much  fasting,  so  much  in  alms,  would  cancel  the  debt.  He  might  err  by 
excess  or  deficiency.  In  the  former  case,  no  great  harm  could  come; 
it  would  only  mean  a  little  harder  earthly  life.  In  the  latter  case,  the 
deficiency  would  have  to  be  made  up  in  purgatory.  But  there  was  yet 
another  way  of  looking  at  works  of  satisfaction:  the  priest  was  thought  to 
represent  the  Church,  and  as  the  Church  represented  Christ,  what  the 
priest  imposed  was  what  was  required  by  divine  justice.  Many  held 
this  view,  and  others  who  did  not  fully  accept  it,  yet  thought  it  a  great 
deal  safer  to  do  what  the  priest  required.2 

With  the  change  in  the  significance  of  penitential  works  there  came 
a  change  in  the  source  of  the  penitent's  anxieties  and  trouble.  Formerly 
he  had  pleaded  for  readmission  into  the  Church;  that  attained,  he  felt 
sure  of  salvation.  He  now  bore  the  burden  of  sin  to  be  expiated.  Just 
in  proportion  to  the  tenderness  of  his  conscience  he  felt  the  insufficiency 
of  his  works  of  satisfaction.  These  works  were  sometimes  bitter  and 
hard  to  be  endured,  but  with  all  his  efforts  he  seemed  to  make  no  ad- 
vance. The  prospect  was  of  a  whole  life  of  hardness,  and,  it  might  be, 
of  years  and  years  of  suffering  hereafter.  The  light  would  at  last  dawn 
upon  him;  he  would  surely  reach  Heaven  at  last;  but  it  made  the  heart 
sick  to  think  of  the  long  and  dark  and  toilsome  way  to  be  traveled  before 
the  rest  could  come.  Was  there  no  relief  from  this  state  of  anxiety;  no 
way  to  be  rid  of  the  oppressive  burden  and  the  long  labor?  Yes,  the 

1  Absolution  frees  from  punishment  as  well  as  from  guilt,  the  punishment  that 
condemns  and  wholly  destroys,  from  which  although  a  man  is  freed,  he  is  bound 
to  temporal  punishments,   since  such  punishment  is  medicinal,   purifying,   etc. 
This  punishment  remains  to  be  endured  in  purgatory,  even  by  those  who  have 
been  freed  from  the  punishment  of  hell. — Thomas  Aquinas,  Sumrna,  pt.  iii,  quest. 
69,  supplement. 

2  The  penance  of  the  priest  was  even  enforced  by  law.    A  law  of  Pippin  (758) 
says,  Si  aliquis  ista  omnia  contemsit,  et  episcopus  emendare  minime  potuerit,  regis 
judicio  exilio  condemnetur.     Gieseler,  2:  54. 


26  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

Church  found  relief.  As  it  had  formerly  enjoined  penance,  and  removed 
it  in  case  of  threatened  death,  so  now  it  might,  for  just  cause,  change  it 
or  entirely  remit  it.  This  was  indulgence. 

The  doctrine  of  indulgence,  like  that  of  penance,  was  a  growth;  and, 
as  in  the  case  of  penance,  indulgences  were  an  established  institution  of 
the  Church  before  a  theory  of  them  was  elaborated.  We  have  to  go 
back  as  far  as  the  third  century,  and  the  persecutions  of  Christians  under 
Decius  and  Diocletian,  to  find  the  beginnings  of  the  practice.  Many 
members  of  the  churches  lapsed  under  the  stress  of  these  persecutions, 
denied  Christ  and  sacrificed  or  delivered  up  the  sacred  writings.  The 
problem  of  dealing  with  these  lapsi  became  the  most  difficult  question 
that  the  early  Church  had  to  solve.  A  minority  held  that  Christ,  who 
knows  the  secrets  of  the  heart,  might  forgive  those  who  truly  repented 
of  this  heinous  sin,  as  he  forgave  Peter;  but  that  the  Church,  being  unable 
to  distinguish  the  truly  penitent  from  those  only  pretending  penitence, 
should  not  restore  such  sinners  to  communion.  It  was  the  insistence 
of  the  majority  upon  the  forgiveness  and  restoration  of  the  lapsed  that 
led  to  the  Novatian  schism  at  Rome,  and  was  the  occasion  also  of  the 
Donatist  schism  at  Carthage.  For  the  majority  took  the  more  charitable 
view  that  the  lapsed  members  ought  to  be  "given  peace,"  or  restored  to 
fellowship,  when  they  had  given  sufficient  evidence  of  penitence.  They 
were  meanwhile  put  on  much  the  same  footing  as  catechumens,  and 
Cyprian  writes  to  his  presbyters  that  they  are  to  cherish  and  cheer  these 
penitents  "that  they  may  not  fail  of  the  faith  and  God's  mercy.  For 
those  shall  not  be  forsaken  by  the  aid  and  assistance  of  the  Lord  who 
meekly,  humbly  and  with  true  penitence  have  persevered  in  good 
works."1  What  these  "good  works"  were  to  be  Cyprian  leaves  us  in  no 
doubt,  for  he  elsewhere  says : 

You  must  pray  more  eagerly  and  entreat;  you  must  spend  the 
day  in  grief;  wear  put  nights  in  watchings  and  weepings;  occupy 
all  your  time  in  wailful  lamentations.  After  the  devil's  meat,  you 
must  prefer  fasting;  be  earnest  in  righteous  works,  whereby  sins 
may  be  purged;  frequently  apply  yourself  to  almsgiving,  whereby 
souls  are  freed  from  death.  Let  all  your  estate  be  laid  out  for  the 
healing  of  your  wound.  He  can  mercifully  pardon  the  repenting, 
the  laboring,  the  beseeching  sinner.  He  can  regard  as  effectual 
whatever,  in  behalf  of  such  as  these,  either  martyrs  have  besought 
or  priests  have  done.2 

We  see  here  well  established,  by  the  year  250,  the  notion  that  the 
penitent's  own  prayers  and  good  works  will  purchase  the  pardon  of  his 
sins  from  God,  and  hence  from  the  Church,  but  that  others  may  do  some- 

1  Ep.  xii:  2. 

2  De  Lapsis,  35,  36. 


THE  WOLF  IN  THE  SHEEPFOLD  27 

thing  in  his  behalf,  especially  the  martyrs.  It  was  right  that  the  Church 
should  bestow  special  honor  on  the  martyrs,  and  but  natural  that  it 
should  attribute  to  them  special  sanctity.  But  this  led,  after  a  time, 
to  such  errors  in  practice  and  perversions  of  doctrine  that  the  more 
sober-minded  Fathers  were  compelled  to  protest  against  the  exaggerated 
and  unwholesome  estimate  of  the  martyrs  commonly  entertained.1 
The  one  practice  that  immediately  concerns  us,  however,  seems  to  have 
provoked  little  protest:  the  custom  of  those  awaiting  martyrdom  to  give 
to  those  who  had  lapsed  certificates  to  procure  their  restoration  to  the 
communion  of  the  Church.  Cyprian  gives  one  of  these  certificates  in 
what  was  probably  the  usual  form: 

All  the  confessors  to  Father  [Papse,  Pope,  the  usual  title  of  all 
bishops]  Cyprian,  greeting.  Know  that  to  all,  concerning  whom 
the  account  of  what  they  have  done  since  the  commission  of  their 
sin  has  been,  in  your  estimation  satisfactory,  we  have  granted  peace 
[i.  e.,  recognized  them  as  worthy  of  Christian  fellowship];  and  we 
have  desired  that  this  rescript  should  be  made  known  by  you  to 
the  other  bishops  also.  We  bid  you  have  peace  with  the  holy 
martyrs  [i.  e.,  receive  these  lapsed  persons  into  the  Church,  as  we 
have  received  them  into  our  personal  fellowship].  Lucianus  wrote 
this,  there  being  present  of  the  clergy,  both  an  exorcist  and  reader.2 

Cyprian  did  not  favor  the  acceptance  of  these  certificates  at  their  full 
face  value,  as  a  satisfactory  equivalent  for  the  public  penance  of  the 
lapsed — not  even  a  martyr  could  grant  absolution  from  sin,  but  God 
only — and  he  rebukes  the  presbyters  who  had  been  too  hasty  in  granting 
peace  to  the  lapsed.3  Still,  he  admits  that  the  certificates  have  a  certain 
value,  since  " the  merits  of  the  martyrs  are  of  great  avail  with  the  Judge" ; 
and,  in  case  any  of  the  certificated  fall  ill  and  are  about  to  die,  they  "  should 
be  remitted  to  the  Lord  with  the  peace  promised  to  them  by  the  mar- 
tyrs."4 Here  we  see  what  was  later  called  absolution  in  the  article  of 
death. 

The  germ  of  the  practice  of  granting  indulgences  we  have  therefore 
found  in  the  acceptance  of  these  certificates  of  the  martyrs  as  a  partial 
equivalent  for  the  public  penance  of  the  lapsed.  And  what  Cyprian 
and  other  Fathers  taught  became  the  fixed  practice  of  the  Church,  through 
the  canons  enacted  by  the  early  councils.  Five  of  the  twenty  canons 
of  the  Council  of  Nice  (x-xiv)  are  devoted  to  this  subject,  and  a  maximum 
penance  of  ten  years  is  prescribed  for  the  lapsed  with  two  years  more 

Augustine,  Serm.  xiv.  "  Constitutions  of  the  Holy  Apostles,"  v.  3,  9.  Ter- 
tullian  ad  Martyras,  i.  4.  But  de  Modestia,  22.  Tertullian  denies  power  of  martyrs 
to  grant  absolution. 

2  Ep.  xvi. 

8  Ep.  ix.     De  Lapsis,  20. 

4  Ep.  xii,  xiii.     De  Lapsis,  17,  18. 


28  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

of  only  partial  communion,  i.  e.,  in  the  prayers  at  the  eucharistic  service, 
but  not  in  the  oblation.  The  local  councils  of  Ancyra  (A.  D.  314)  and 
Laodicea  (365)  confirm  this  treatment,  and  so  does  the  general  Council 
of  Chalcedon  (415).  But  these  councils  are  also  noteworthy  in  that  they 
mark  the  extension  of  the  public  penance  from  the  lapsed  to  those  guilty 
of  other  flagrant  sins,  like  adultery — these  are  also  to  be  ranked  with 
catechumens  and  required  to  undergo  a  penance,  in  some  cases  as  long 
as  twenty-five  years.1  They  are  noteworthy  also  in  that  for  the  first 
time  the  bishop  is  authorized  to  grant  indulgence,  in  his  discretion,  i.  e., 
to  shorten  the  penance  and  admit  the  culprit  to  communion  sooner  than 
the  canons  allow.2  And  in  any  case,  those  about  to  die  were  not  to  be 
deprived  of  the  viaticum.3 

The  inseparable  connection  of  indulgences  and  penance  is,  therefore,  as 
clear  historically  as  it  is  dogmatically.  And  such  a  germ  was  certain  to 
find  in  the  Catholic  Church  a  fertile  soil.  As  the  practice  and  the  doctrine 
of  penance  developed,  indulgences  would  certainly  grow  pan  passu. 
From  the  time  of  Leo  the  Great4  public  penance  was  rapidly  transformed 
into  private  confession  and  such  penance  as  the  confessor  might  impose. 
To  the  prayers  and  almsgiving  prescribed  by  the  Church  in  Cyprian's 
day,  pilgrimages  to  shrines  held  to  be  specially  sacred  were  added  as 
appropriate  good  works  for  the  penitent.  As  the  discipline  of  the  Church 
became  more  strict  and  the  penances  imposed  more  onerous,  it  was  natural 
that  means  of  relief  should  be  sought,  but  for  a  time  the  Church  provided 
none — it  was  too  much  occupied  in  strengthening  its  grip  on  the  medieval 
world  to  adopt  an  expedient  that,  whatever  else  it  accomplished,  would 
loosen  that  grip. 

It  is  not  until  the  time  of  the  Crusades,  therefore,  that  we  find  any 
marked  development  of  indulgences.  Urban  II,  at  the  Synod  of  Cler- 
mont  in  1095,  followed  up  the  great  sermon  in  which  he  roused  Europe 
to  one  of  the  most  momentous  enterprises  in  its  history  by  holding  out 
the  following  inducement  to  all  who  would  engage  in  this  holy  war : 

If  anyone  through  devotion  alone,  and  not  for  the  sake  of  honor 
or  gain,  goes  to  Jerusalem  to  free  the  church  of  God,  the  journey 
itself  shall  take  the  place  of  all  penance.5 

It  does  not  appear  that  the  earlier  indulgences  contemplated  more 
than  the  remission  of  canonical  penances;  nothing  is  said  of  remission  of 
sins,  or  of  the  penalties  of  purgatory,  though  belief  in  purgatory  was  well 

1  Ancyra,  can.  xvi.     Laodicea,  can.  ii. 

2  Ancyra,  can.  ii,  v.     Chalcedon,  can.  xvi. 

3  Nice,  can.  xiii. 

4  Ep.  136. 

5  Quicunque  pro  sola  devotione,  non  pro  honoris  vel  pecuniae  adeptione  ad  liber- 
andam  ecclesiam  Dei  Jerusalem  profectus  fuerit,  iter  illud  pro  omni  poenitentia  re- 
putetur.     Canon  ii.     Mansi,  20:  816. 


THE  WOLF  IN  THE  SHEEPFOLD  29 

established  in  the  Church  from  the  time  of  Gregory  the  Great  onward 
(d.  604).  It  is  possible  that  nothing  more  than  remission  of  canonical 
penance  was  intended  or  implied  by  the  bull  Quantum  praedecessores, 
of  Engene  III,  in  1145,  which  marks  the  beginning  of  the  second 
crusade: 

Moreover,  we,  with  paternal  care  providing  for  your  peace  and 
the  need  of  the  Church,  by  the  authority  committed  to  us  by  God, 
do  grant  and  confirm  to  those  who,  in  a  spirit  of  devotion,  have 
undertaken  to  begin  and  complete  a  work  and  labor  so  holy,  so 
extremely  necessary,  that  remission  of  sins  which  our  aforesaid 
predecessor  Pope  Urban,  instituted. 

According  to  the  institution  of  our  aforesaid  predecessor,  and  by 
the  authority  given  us  by  the  Omnipotent  God  and  blessed  Peter, 
prince  of  Apostles,  we  grant  remission  and  absolution  of  sins,  such 
that  he  who  begins  and  finishes  a  journey  so  holy,  or  dies  on  the  way, 
shall  obtain  absolution  from  all  sins  that  he  confesses  with  contrite 
heart,  and  shall  obtain  the  reward  of  the  eternal  recompense  from 
the  Rewarder  of  all.1 

It  must  be  confessed  that  this  language  is  more  than  a  little  ambiguous, 
and  lends  itself  without  much  forcing  to  a  very  broad  interpretation, 
but  probably  nothing  more  was  intended  at  the  time  to  be  included  within 
the  scope  of  this  indulgence  than  canonical  penances.  This  interpre- 
tation is  borne  out  by  the  subsequent  practice,  which  for  a  long  time  did 
not  contemplate  an  increase  in  the  supposed  efficacy  of  indulgences,  so 
much  as  an  enlargement  of  their  scope.  The  taking  of  the  cross,  for  the 
recovery  of  the  Holy  Sepulcher,  was  supposed  in  the  twelfth  century  to 
be  a  work  of  so  great  merit  as  well  to  deserve  the  special  recognition  of 
it  by  the  Church.  Nor  did  it  appear  to  be  an  unreasonable  notion  that 
the  power  that  imposed  canonical  penalties  could  also  remit  them.  If 
the  practice  and  the  pretensions  of  the  Church  had  stopped  here,  relatively 
little  would  ever  have  been  heard  about  indulgences.  But  from  the 
twelfth  century  the  process  of  development  went  on  with  ever  accelerat- 
ing rapidity.  The  next  step  was  to  regard  as  crusaders  those  who  took 
arms  in  behalf  of  the  Church  against  heretics,  which  was  done  by  Inno- 
cent III,  and  the  Fourth  Lateran  Council,  in  1215: 

1  Nos  autem  vestrorum  quieti,*  et  ejusdem  Ecclesiae  destitutioni  paterna  solicitudine 
providenta,  illis,  qui  tarn  sanctum,  tamque  pernecessarium  opus,  et  laborem  dewtionis 
intuitu  suscipere,  et  perficere  decreverint,  illam  peccatorum  remissionem,  quam  prae- 
fatus  praedecessor  noster  Papa  Urbanus  institute,  auctoritate  nobis  a  Deo  concessa, 
concedimus  et  confirmamus.  Peccatorum  remissionem,  et  absolutionem  juxta  praefati 
praedecessoris  nostri  institutionem,  Omnipotentis  Dei,  et  Beati  Petri  Apostolorum 
Principis,  auctoritate  nobis  a  Deo  concessa  talem  concedimus,  ut  qui  tarn  sanctum 
iter  devote  incoeperit  et  perfecerit,  sine  ibidem  mortuus  fuerit,  de  omnibus  peccatis 
suis  de  quibus  corde  contritp  et  humiliato,  confessionem  susceperit,  absolutionem 
obtineat  et  sempiternae  retributionis  fructum  ab  omnium  remuneratore  percipiat. 
Mag.  Bull.,  1:  37,  §§  6,  12. 


30  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

Catholics  who  have  taken  the  sign  of  the  cross  and  armed  them- 
selves for  the  extermination  of  heretics,  shall  enjoy  those  indulgences 
and  shall  be  rewarded  with  that  holy  privilege  which  is  granted  to 
those  who  bring  aid  to  the  holy  land.1 

But  this  Pope  and  Council,  while  they  thus  enlarged  the  scope  of  indul- 
gences, undertook  to  reform  abuses  that  had  already  developed.  The 
theory  underlying  the  early  canons,  seems  to  have  been  that  every  bishop 
had  the  power  to  grant  indulgences  valid  in  his  own  diocese,  and  from  the 
tenth  century  it  became  customary  to  grant  at  the  dedication  of  a  church 
indulgences  to  all  who  should  perform  certain  devotions  there.  These 
came  to  be  unduly  multiplied,  and  it  was  felt  that  a  restriction  of  this 
power  was  needed  to  prevent  scandal.  Accordingly  this  canon  was 
enacted: 

In  addition  to  these  things,  since  through  indiscreet  and  super- 
fluous indulgences,  which  indeed  prelates  of  the  churches  do  not 
shrink  from  giving,  both  the  keys  of  the  church  are  despised  and  the 
efficacy  of  penance  is  weakened,  we  decree  that,  when  a  church  is 
dedicated,  indulgence  shall  not  be  granted  for  more  than  a  year, 
whether  it  is  dedicated  by  a  single  bishop  or  by  many;  and  there- 
after, on  the  anniversary  of  the  dedication,  the  conceded  remission 
of  penances  enjoined  shall  not  exceed  forty  days.  We  enjoin  that 
those  who  at  different  times  grant  certificates  of  indulgence,  for 
whatever  causes,  restrict  even  this  number  of  days,  since  the  Roman 
Pontiff,  who  possesses  the  fulness  of  power,  has  been  accustomed 
to  keep  control  of  such  matters.2 

From  this  time  onward,  the  granting  of  indulgences  was  regarded  as 
the  special  prerogative  of  the  Pope,  though  episcopal  indulgences  still 
continued.  At  the  first  general  council  of  Lyons,  in  1245,  a  still  further 
extension  of  indulgences  to  crusaders  was  declared,  so  as  to  include  not 
only  those  who  actually  took  the  cross,  but  those  who  aided  the  crusade  :3 

1  Catholici  yero,  qui  crucis  assumpto  charactere  ad  haereticorum  exterminium  se 
accinxerint,   ilia  gaudent  indulgentia,   illoque  sancto   privilegio   sint  muniti,   quod 
accedentibus,  in  terrae  sanctae  subsidium  conceditur.      Canon  iii.      Mansi,  22:  987. 
The  synod  of  Siena,  1425,  granted  the  same  plenary  indulgence  to  all  who  would 
take  arms  against  the  Husites.     Mansi,  28:  1062. 

2  §  62.     Ad  haec,  quia  per  indiscretas  et  super fluas  indulgentias,   quas  quidem 
Ecclesiarum  Praelati  facere  non  verentur,  et  claves  Ecclesiae  contemnunter,  et  poeni- 
tentialis  satisfactio  enervatur:  decernimus,  ut,  cum  dedicatur  basilica  non  extendatur 
indulgentia  ultra  annum,  sive  ab  uno  solo,  sive  a  pluritus  Episcopis  dedicetur:  ac 
deinde  in  anniversario  dedicationis  tempore  XL  dies  de  injunctis  poenitentiis  indulta 
remissio  non  excedat.  .  .    Hunc   quoque   dierum    numerum  indulgentiarum  literas 
praecipimus  moderari,  qui  quo  quibuslibet  causis  aliquoties  conceduntur:  cum  Ro- 
manus  Pontifex,  qui  plenitudinem  obtinet  potestatis,  hoc  in  talibus  moderamen  con- 
sueverit  observare.     Mansi,  22:  1050. 

3  Eis  autem,  qui  non  in  propriis  personis  illuc  accesserint,  sed  in  suis  dumtaxat  ex- 
pensis  juxta  facultatem  et  qualitatem  suam  viros  idoneos  destinaverint,  et  illis  similiter, 
qui  licet  in  alienis  expensis,  in  propriis  tamen  personis  accesserint,  plenam  suorum 
concedimus  veniam  peccatorum.    Hujusmodi  quoque  remissionis  concedimus  esse  par- 
ticipes,  juxta  quantitatem  subsidii,  et  devotionis  affectum,  omnes  qui  ad  subventionem 
ipsius  terrae  de  bonis,  suis  congrue   ministrabunt,  aut  circa  praedicto  consilium  et 
auxilium  impenderint  apportunum.    Canon  17.     Mansi,  23:  628-632. 


THE  WOLF  IN  THE  SHEEPFOLD  31 

To  those  moreover  who  shall  not  have  gone  thither  in  their 
own  persons,  but  at  their  own  expense  at  least  according  to  their 
means  and  rank  shall  have  appointed  suitable  men,  and  likewise 
to  those  who  have  gone  in  their  own  persons  even  though  at  the 
expense  of  others,  we  grant  full  pardon  of  their  sins.  We  also 
grant  to  be  partakers  of  this  same  remission,  according  to  the 
amount  of  their  aid,  and  the  state  of  their  devotion,  all  who  shall 
suitably  contribute  to  the  aid  of  that  land  from  their  goods,  or 
shall  give  timely  counsel  and  aid  concerning  the  things  aforesaid. 

But  by  far  the  greatest  enlargement  of  indulgences,  and  that  which 
opened  wide  the  door  to  the  scandalous  abuses  of  later  years,  was  the 
Jubilee  bull  of  Boniface  VIII,  Antiqu&rum  hdbet.  The  opening  words 
of  this  constitution  approve  the  story  that  obtained  general  credence  in 
the  Church — the  Pope  only  confirmed  and  made  precise  what  was  a 
general  tradition  and  rumor  in  Rome,  that  special  benefits  and  indulgences 
were  to  be  had  by  visiting  the  shrines  of  Peter  and  Paul.  The  influx 
of  pilgrims  had  begun  before  the  bull  was  issued,  and  Boniface  did  little 
more  than  take  instant  and  shrewd  advantage  of  a  superstition  that  he 
was  powerless  to  combat.  He  could  and  did  ride  on  the  crest  of  a  wave 
that  would  have  submerged  him  had  he  withstood  it.  This  bull,  though 
one  of  the  most  momentous  documents  in  the  history  of  the  Papacy, 
is  also  one  of  the  briefest : 

A  credible  report  of  old  times  says,  that  to  those  who  visit  the 
honorable  church  of  the  Prince  of  Apostles,  in  this  city,  great  remis- 
sions of  sins  and  indulgences  are  granted. 

We  therefore,  who,  as  becomes  our  office,  strive  after  salvation, 
and  more  gladly  than  others  look  after  remissions  and  indulgences  of 
this  kind,  all  and  several,  pronouncing  them  approved  and  accept- 
able, do  confirm  the  same  by  Apostolic  authority,  and  approve,  and 
even  renew,  and  strengthen  by  the  protection  of  the  present  writing. 

Since  moreover  the  most  blessed  Apostles,  Peter  and  Paul,  will 
be  the  more  fully  honored,  in  that  their  churches  in  this  city  shall  be 
thronged  by  the  faithful,  and  the  faithful  themselves  by  the  lavish- 
ing of  spiritual  services  shall  with  better  reason  perceive  themselves 
filled  full  in  consequence  of  this  very  thronging,  We,  trusting  in  the 
mercy  of  the  Omnipotent  God,  and  in  the  merits  and  authority  of  his 
aforesaid  Apostles,  with  the  advice  of  our  brethren  and  in  the  pleni- 
tude of  the  Apostolic  power,  will  grant  and  do  grant  not  only  full 
and  quite  abundant,  but  the  fullest  pardon  of  all  their  sins,1  to  all  who 

1  The  essential  part  of  this  document,  a  sentence  from  sec.  2,  is  as  follows  in 
the  original:  Nos  de  Omnipotentis  DEI  misericordia  et  eorundem  Apostolorum  ejus 
mentis  et  auctoritate  confisi,  de  fratrum  nostrorum  consilio,  et  Apostolicae  plenitudine 
potestatis,  omnibus  in  praesenti  anno  millesimo  trecentesimo,  a  festo  Nativitatis 
Domini  nostri  JESU-CHRISTI  praeterito  proxime  inchoato,  et  in  quolibet  anno 
centesimo  secuturo,  ad  Basilicas  ipsas  accedentibus  reverenter,  vere  poenitentibus  et 
confessis,  vel  qui  vere  poenitebunt,  et  confitebuntur,  in  hujusmodi  praesenti,  et  quolibet 
centesimo  secuturo  anno,  non  solum  plenam  et  largiorem,  imo  plenissimam  omnium 
suorum  concedemus  et  consedimus  veniam  peccatorum.  For  the  whole  bull  see 
Mag.  Bull,  1:  179. 


32  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

in  the  present  year,  1300,  beginning  from  the  feast  of  the  nativity  of 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  just  past,  and  in  every  hundredth  year  to 
come,  shall  reverently  visit  those  churches,  they  being  truly  penitent 
and  confessed,  or  who  shall  repent  and  confess  in  this  present  year, 
and  in  any  hundredth  year  to  come. 

Commending  that  whoso  wish  to  be  partakers  of  this  indulgence 
granted  by  us,  if  Romans,  they  shall  visit  those  churches  at  least 
thirty  days,  consecutive  or  separated,  and  at  least  once  a  day;  but 
if  they  are  foreigners  or  live  without  the  city,  they  shall  do  the  same 
fifteen  days.  Everyone,  however,  will  merit  more  and  obtain  a 
more  efficacious  indulgence  if  he  visits  those  churches  more  often 
and  more  devoutly. 

Let  no  man  by  any  means  impair  this  page  of  our  constitution 
and  appointment,  or  by  a  rash  deed  oppose  it.  But  if  anyone  should 
presume  to  attempt  this,  let  him  know  that  he  will  incur  the  wrath 
of  the  Omnipotent  God,  and  of  his  blessed  Apostles,  Peter  and  Paul. 

Given  at  Rome,  at  St.  Peter's,  Feb.  20,  1300,  in  the  sixth  year 
of  our  pontificate.1 

All  the  documents  that  we  have  thus  far  examined  have  been  concerned 
with  the  practice  of  indulgences,  not  with  the  doctrine.  The  Church  had 
no  doctrine,  in  fact,  and  to  this  day  has  none.  That  is  to  say,  while 
Catholic  theologians  have  elaborated  a  doctrine  regarding  indulgences, 
nothing  is  taught  about  them  as  an  article  of  faith,  except  the  mere  fact 
that  the  Church  has  the  right  and  power  to  grant  them,  and  all  who 
deny  this  are  anathematized  as  heretics  by  the  decrees  of  Trent.  But 
it  is  open  to  any  Catholic  who  admits  so  much,  to  go  on  and  make  any 
further  explanation  of  the  doctrine  that  he  pleases.  A  good  many 
theologians  have  availed  themselves  of  this  privilege,  and  there  is  now  a 
well-defined  teaching  on  the  subject,  though  it  still  lacks  official  con- 
firmation, save  at  a  few  points. 

But  as  we  have  seen  that  there  were  great  differences  of  opinion  as 
to  the  nature  and  purposes  of  works  of  satisfaction,  so  there  were  differ- 
ences as  to  the  force  and  significance  of  indulgences.  The  general  belief 

1  Like  everything  else  connected  with  indulgences,  the  Jubilee  was  abused. 
It  was  evidently  the  idea  of  Boniface  VIII,  as  it  was  the  tradition  of  his  day, 
to  limit  the  Jubilee  to  the  even  years  of  the  century,  1300,  1400,  etc.  But  so 
great  was  the  stream  of  pilgrims  that  poured  into  Rome  during  the  year  1300, 
and  so  great  was  the  wealth  brought  to  Church  and  people  by  their  presence, 
that  there  was  no  patience  to  wait  a  hundred  years  for  the  repetition  of  this  ex- 
perience. Various  pious  pretexts  were  found  to  make  a  decent  veil  for  this  greed. 
For  example,  pity  was  demanded  for  the  generations  that  must  live  and  die  before 
this  privilege  could  again  be  granted,  unless  the  time  were  shortened.  The  demand 
of  the  people  and  the  impatience  of  the  Popes  became  at  length  too  great  to  be 
resisted,  and  in  1350  Clement  was  moved  to  recognize  a  semi-centennial  jubilee. 
Raynaldus,  anno  1350,  n.  2.  This  again  proved  too  short  an  interval,  and  Paul  II 
in  1470  fixed  the  time  at  every  twenty-fifth  year,  in  the  bull  Inffdbilis  provi- 
dentia,  Mag.  Bull,  1 :  385  seq.  There,  for  very  shame,  it  has  since  been  left.  In- 
deed, the  interval  could  hardly  be  made  shorter  if  any  significance  were  to  be 
preserved  for  such  a  celebration  and  pilgrimage.  Exceptional  blessings  must  have 
preserved  for  them  at  least  an  air  of  being  exceptional,  and  not  the  regular  thing. 


THE  WOLF  IN  THE  SHEEPFOLD  33 

was  that  the  Church  could  relax  what  the  Church  had  enjoined,  but  the 
application  of  this  principle  was  by  no  means  clear.  If  works  of  satisfac- 
tion were  only  disciplinary,  and  expressive  of  what,  in  the  judgment  of 
the  priest,  would  be  beneficial  and  helpful  to  the  penitent,  they  would 
belong  only  to  this  life,  and  their  remission  could  give  relief  in  this  world 
only.  If  the  judgment  of  the  priest  corresponded  with  the  judgment  of 
God,  and  the  works  enjoined  by  the  Church  were  also  required  by  divine 
justice,  their  remission  or  relaxation  was  something  quite  considerable. 
This  last  came  to  be  the  popular  opinion,  but  there  were  serious  diffi- 
culties in  the  way  of  accepting  it.  The  chief  of  these  was  the  old  belief, 
handed  down  from  the  first,  that  God  alone  can  forgive  sin  and  relax 
penalty  due  to  sin.  If  these  works  of  satisfaction  were  required  by 
divine  justice,  and  the  priest  in  imposing  them  was  simply  declaring  and 
enjoining  what  was  already  required  by  divine  law,  how  could  the  Church 
remit  them?  In  attempting  to  answer  this  question,  the  several  theories 
of  indulgence  were  formulated  or  invented. 

The  earliest  of  these  was  the  theory  of  intercession.  In  consideration 
of  certain  services  or  gifts,  the  Church  would  intercede  with  God,  and 
He,  in  answer  to  the  Church's  prayers,  would  remit  or  relax  or  pardon. 
It  was  the  plan  of  intercession  that  Gregory  VI  (1044)  was  to  use  when 
he  promised  certain  persons  who  had  done  a  service  for  Rome,  "both 
for  himself  and  his  successors  to  celebrate  mass  for  them  three  times  a 
year  in  all  the  Roman  churches,  and  to  have  them  in  remembrance 
seven  times  during  the  sacred  solemnities  of  the  mass,  that  the  Almighty 
Lord,  by  the  merits  of  the  mother  of  God,  and  by  the  authority  of  the 
blessed  apostles,  Peter  and  Paul,  and  by  the  prayers  of  all  the  saints, 
living  and  dead,  would  absolve  them  from  all  their  sins  and  lead  them 
into  eternal  life."1  Sometimes,  indeed,  the  Popes  forgot  that  they  and 
the  Church  were  simple  intercessors,  and  promised  absolutely  and  un- 
conditionally. Sometimes,  too,  works  of  special  merit  were  said  to  avail 
in  themselves  for  the  remission  of  sin  and  penalty.  But  the  sober  feel- 
ing of  the  Church  required  that  the  works  should  be  supplemented  by 
the  prayers  of  the  Church,  which  were  supposed,  in  a  certain  sense  at 
least,  to  command  the  favor  of  God.  In  this  case,  the  power  of  the  Pope, 
as  head  of  the  Church,  was  very  great,  since  he  might  command  the 
intercession  of  all  the  saints. 

Another  theory,  more  noted,  or  at  least  exciting  more  opposition,  was 
that  based  on  the  Treasure  of  merits.  This  Treasure  is  composed  of  the 
merits  of  Christ,  and  of  the  saints  in  excess  of  what  was  required  of  them. 
Its  principal  support  is  the  doctrine  of  the  atonement  held  and  taught 
by  many  learned  Doctors  of  the  Church,  but  most  prominently  by 
,  1D'Ach6ry,  SpicUegium,  3:  398. 


34  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

Anselm  (1109),  that  the  death  of  Christ,  an  infinite  being,  was  of  infinite 
worth,  not  only  sufficient  but  infinitely  more  than  sufficient,  to  atone 
for  the  sins  of  the  world.  This  doctrine  was  elaborated  and  applied  to 
indulgences  by  Alexander  of  Hales  (d.  1245).  Christ,  by  the  infinite 
worth  of  his  person,  accomplished  through  his  sufferings  a  store  of  merit 
more  than  sufficient  for  the  salvation  of  the  whole  world.  These  super- 
abounding  merits  constitute  a  vast  Treasure,  which  exists  objectively,  and 
being  performed  for  the  whole  Church  belongs  to  the  whole  Church  and 
may  be  used  for  relieving  from  penalty  those  who  need  relief.  And  just 
as  there  was  an  arithmetical,  quantitative  valuation  of  the  works  of 
Christ,  so  there  was  the  same  of  the  works  of  the  saints:  they,  too,  could 
and  did  accomplish  more  than  enough  for  their  own  salvation.  What 
became  of  this  excess?  The  merits  of  the  saints  naturally  belong  to  the 
Church;  the  Church,  in  a  sense,  had  acquired  them.  The  merits  of  the 
Christ  also  belong  to  the  Church,  not  naturally  and  of  her  own  right, 
but  as  by  a  certain  unio  mystica  the  Church  is  one  with  Christ,  whatever 
is  his  becomes  hers  as  well.  And  so,  his  merits  and  the  merits  of  the 
saints  belong  to  the  Church;  and  this  great  Treasure  the  Church  adminis- 
ters and  controls  for  the  benefit  of  its  members.  This  it  does  through  its 
authorized  officers,  the  bishops,  and  especially  the  Pope,  the  chief  bishop. 

Albertus  Magnus  (d.  1280)  further  elaborated  this  idea,  by  conjoining 
with  the  doctrine  of  Alexander  the  mysterious  "power  of  the  keys," 
given  by  Christ  to  Peter  as  head  of  the  Church,  and  to  his  successors. 
This  made  clearer  the  way  in  which  the  Treasure  could  be  lawfully  dis- 
pensed. Such  dispensation  was  vested  in  the  Pope,  as  the  successor  of 
Peter  and  the  holder  of  the  keys.  The  merits  and  sufferings  of  Christ 
and  the  saints  can  thus  be  assigned  for  the  benefit  of  those  who  need  them, 
whether  living  or  suffering  in  purgatory.  The  Church  might  pray,  but 
it  was  with  God  to  answer  the  prayer  or  not  as  he  saw  fit.  But  with  the 
Treasure  of  merit  at  command,  the  Church  operated  on  a  solid  basis. 
Provided  there  is  such  a  Treasure,  and  provided  the  Church  can  control 
it,  and  provided  the  merits  of  Christ  and  the  saints  are  actually  trans- 
ferred by  the  power  of  the  keys  to  the  receiver  of  indulgences,  it  would 
be  safe  to  have  indulgences.  But  there  is  such  a  Treasure  and  the 
Church  does  control  it.  Thus,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  God 
alone  can  forgive  sins  and  remit  penalty,  the  Church  can  guarantee  such 
remission,  because  it  can  offer  a  consideration  that  God  is  bound  to  respect. 

Thomas  Aquinas  (d.  1274),  in  this  as  in  most  questions  of  theology, 
contributes  little  or  nothing  to  the  doctrine,  but  sums  up  all  that  was 
held  by  his  predecessors  and  gives  it  logical  coherency  and  system.  He 
finds  the  ultimate  ground  of  indulgences  in  Christ;  no  one  has  supreme 
power  in  the  sacrament  but  Christ.  But  Christ  could  remit  sin  apart 


THE  WOLF  IN  THE  SHEEPFOLD  35 

from  any  satisfaction,  as  he  did  in  the  case  of  the  sinful  woman  (John 
viii).  Therefore  Paul  also  could,  and  the  Pope  is  of  no  less  power  in 
the  Church  than  Paul.  We  should  believe  in  the  validity  of  indulgences, 
because  the  Church  universal  cannot  err,  and  the  Church  approves 
indulgences;  therefore  they  must  be  valid — it  is  heretical,  impious  even, 
to  say  otherwise.  As  to  the  limits  within  which  indulgences  become 
efficacious,  Thomas  says: 

But  some  say  that  they  do  not  avail  to  absolve  from  liability 
to  the  penalty  that  is  due  in  ..purgatory  according  to  the  judgment 
of  God,  but  they  avail  for  absolving  from  the  obligation  by  which 
the  priest  binds  the  penitent  to  some  penalty,  or  by  which  he  is  bound 
by  canon  law.  But  this  opinion  does  not  seem  to  be  true.  First 
because  it  is  expressly  contrary  to  the  privilege  given  to  Peter  (Matt, 
xvi)  that  what  he  should  remit  on  earth  would  be  remitted  in  heaven. 
Hence,  whatever  validity  the  remission  has  at  the  bar  of  the  Church 
it  has  the  same  at  the  bar  of  God.  And  besides,  the  Church,  in 
granting  indulgences  of  that  sort  would  condemn  rather  than  acquit, 
because  she  would  send  him  to  the  heavier  penalties  of  purgatory 
while  absolving  him  from  penalties  enjoined.1 

The  secret  of  the  validity  of  indulgences,  Thomas  finds  precisely  where 
Alexander  found  it,  and  he  differs  from  that  Doctor  only  in  stating  the 
thought  with  his  usual  unrivaled  precision  and  felicity: 

The  reason  why  they  are  able  to  avail  is  the  unity  of  the  mystic 
body,  in  which  many  have  superabounded  in  works  of  penitence 
beyond  the  measure  of  their  own  dues  and  have  patiently  borne 
many  unjust  tribulations,  through  which  a  multitude  of  penalties 
might  have  been  expiated,  if  owed  by  them.  The  abundance  of  their 
merits  is  so  great  as  to  exceed  all  the  penalty  owed  by  those  now 
living.  And  especially,  on  account  of  the  merit  of  Christ,  which, 
though  it  operates  in  the  sacraments,  nevertheless  its  efficacy  is  not 
shut  up  in  the  sacraments,  but  by  its  infinity  exceeds  the  efficacy  of 
the  sacraments.  The  saints,  moreover,  in  whom  this  superabundance 
of  the  works  of  satisfaction  is  found,  did  not  perform  such  works  for 
a  given  individual  who  needed  remission,  but  for  the  whole  Church 
in  common.  And  so  the  aforesaid  merits  are  the  common  possession 
of  the  whole  Church.  Those  things  that  are  the  common  possession 
of  any  multitude  are  distributed  to  individuals  of  the  multitude, 
according  to  the  judgment  of  him  who  is  over  them.  Wherefore, 
just  as  anyone  would  obtain  remission  of  penalty  if  some  one  satis- 
fied it  in  his  behalf,  it  is  the  same  thing  if  the  satisfaction  of 
another  is  distributed  to  him  by  one  who  has  the  power. 

As  for  the  power  to  grant  indulgences,  Thomas  holds  that  this  is  a 
work  of  such  importance  as  to  be  beyond  the  province  of  a  parish  priest, 
and  that  only  a  bishop  can  do  it.  But  as  the  "Pope  has  the  plenti- 
tude  of  pontifical  power,  the  power  of  granting  indulgences  to  the  full 

1  Summa  Theologiae,  Supplementum  tertiae  partis.     Quaest  xxv,  Art.  1. 


36  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

extent  rests  in  him,  and  in  the  bishops  according  to  his  regulation." 
Only  one  other  question  of  importance  remains  to  be  answered:  Does  the 
efficacy  of  the  indulgence  rest  on  the  faith  of  the  recipient?  Thomas 
answers  this  as  we  might  expect  from  a  doctor  who  felt  constrained  to 
maintain  that  the  efficacy  of  the  sacraments  of  the  Church  is  opus  opera- 
turn,  a  thuig  resulting  from  the  mere  doing  of  the  act  commanded.  He 
was  led  to  this  conclusion  by  the  conviction  that  only  so  could  the  ob- 
jective validity  of  the  sacraments  be  successfully  maintained.  Make 
the  sacrament  depend  on  faith,  he  argued,  or  the  being  in  a  state  of  grace, 
or  any  other  subjective  condition,  and  who  can  be  certain  that  he  has 
received  any  sacramental  grace?  Endless  scruples  of  conscience  are 
possible  to  disturb  the  believer.  How  can  I  be  sure  that  I  have  real 
faith?  How  can  I  know  that  I  am  in  a  state  of  grace?  But  if  the  per- 
formance of  the  external  act  insures  the  reception  of  the  divine  grace, 
then  we  have  something  definite  to  trust.  So  as  to  indulgences :  the  one 
thing  of  which  we  need  to  be  assured  is  that  they  are  dispensed  by  one 
who  had  adequate  authority,  and  for  a  sufficient  reason.  As  to  the  latter, 
Thomas  said,  the  Treasure  of  merits  was  collected  for  the  glory  of  God 
and  the  good  of  the  Church;  therefore  anything  that  promotes  either 
constitutes  a  sufficient  reason — a  contribution  of  money  to  build  the 
church  of  St.  Peter,  for  example. 

The  bull  of  Clement  VI,  known  as  Unigenitus  Dei  filius,  marks  a  con- 
siderable advance  in  the  doctrine  of  indulgences.  In  it  he  adopts  as  his 
own,  and  approves  as  teacher  of  the  whole  Church  on  a  question  of  faith, 
those  ideas  regarding  indulgences  that  the  doctors  had  elaborated.  It 
can  hardly  be  doubted  that  this  document  comes  within  the  terms  of 
the  Vatican  definition  of  papal  infallibility,  and  hence  its  teaching  is  now 
a  matter  of  faith,  that  every  good  Catholic  is  bound  to  believe.  The 
bull  says: 

For  not  with  corruptible  gold  and  silver  did  he  redeem  us,  but 
with  his  own  precious  blood,  as  of  a  lamb  without  spot  or  blemish, 
who  though  innocent  was  sacrificed  on  the  altar  of  the  cross  in  our 
behalf,  not  shedding  a  mere  drop  of  blood,  which  nevertheless  on 
account  of  his  union  with  the  Word  would  have  sufficed  for  the 
redemption  of  the  whole  human  race,  but  profusely,  as  a  flood  is  seen 
to  pour  forth,  so  that  from  the  sole  of  his  foot  to  his  head  no  sound- 
ness was  found  in  him.  How  much  more  then,  in  order  that  the  pity 
of  so  great  an  effusion  may  be  rendered  neither  needless,  vain  nor 
superfluous,  he  accumulated  a  treasure  for  the  militant  Church, 
wishing  like  a  tender  father  to  give  a  treasure  to  his  sons,  that  so 
there  might  be  an  infinite  treasure  for  men,  and  those  who  have 
employed  it  have  been  made  partakers  of  the  friendship  of  God  I 
Which  treasure  indeed  has  not  been  laid  up  in  a  napkin,  nor  been 
buried  in  a  field,  but  he  has  granted  it  to  be  dispensed  to  believers 


THE  WOLF  IN  THE  SHEEPFOLD  37 

in  a  wholesome  manner  and  for  pious  and  reasonable  causes  through 
the  blessed  Peter,  keeper  of  the  keys  of  heaven,  and  his  successors, 
his  vicars  on  earth;  and  to  be  mercifully  applied  to  those  truly  pen- 
itent and  confessed,  sometimes  for  complete,  sometimes  for  partial 
remission  of  the  temporal  punishment  due  for  sins,  both  general  and 
special,  as  far  as  they  have  learned  with  God's  aid  to  relieve.  To 
which  store  of  treasure  indeed  the  merits  of  the  blessed  God  and  of 
all  the  elect  from  the  first  to  the  last  are  found  to  furnish  the  basis, 
of  whose  consumption  or  diminution  nothing  at  all  should  be  feared, 
because  of  the  infinite  merits  of  Christ,  so  that,  whatever  may  be 
drawn  from  it  from  inclination  toward  compassion,  so  much  the 
more  the  store  of  those  merits  increases.1 

There  was  little  other  alteration  in  the  practice  of  declaring  indulgences  3 
until  the  pontificate  of  Julius  II,  and  the  bull  Liquet  omnibus,  except  in 
one  important  item,  the  sale  of  indulgences  for  money.  It  is  a  little 
difficult  for  us  to  understand  how  a  practice  so  shocking  to  the  moral 
sense  could  ever  have  grown  up  in  an  institution  like  the  Church,  which 
always  professed  to  believe  and  teach  the  ethics  of  Christ  and  the  apostles, 
even  if  it  glaringly  failed  at  times  to  practice  them.  Just  when  and  how 
the  idea  first  gained  general  acceptance  that  the  gift  of  a  sum  of  money 
might  be  regarded  as  an  evidence  of  penitence,  in  lieu  of  other  good  works, 
is  uncertain.  We  find,  however,  that  even  in  Cyprian's  time  almsgiving 
was  regarded  as  a  part  of  canonical  penitence,  but  hardly  as  a  substi- 
tute for  it.  Sorrow  for  sin  might  be  shown  by  gifts,  but  peace  with  the 
Church  could  not  be  so  bought.  In  the  eighth  and  ninth  centuries,  a 
gift  of  money  for  alms  (to  be  dispensed  by  the  Church,  of  course)  was 
accepted  from  those  who  were  unable  to  keep  the  required  fasts2  and  from 
this  to  accepting  like  gifts  instead  of  prescribed  penances  was  but  a  short 
step,  involving  no  new  principle.  A  gift  of  money  was  next  accepted 
as  an  equivalent  for  bearing  arms  in  person  as  a  crusader,  and  such  a 
gift  entitled  the  giver  to  the  full  indulgence  of  the  crusader.  Lucius  III 
seems  to  be  the  first  Pope  who  authorized  indulgences  of  this  kind  (1184),3 
but  a  movement  once  begun  in  this  direction  would  progress  rapidly. 
The  need  and  greed  of  the  medieval  Pontiffs  would  soon  suggest  to  them 
various  ways  in  which  this  new  principle  might  be  turned  to  account  in 
filling  their  ever  empty  coffers. 

1  Raynaldus,  anno  1349,  n.  11.     Most  authorities  give  January  27  as  the  date 
of  this  bull,  but  as  quoted  by  Raynaldus  it  is  distinctly  said  to  be  "given  at 
Avignon,  xv,  Kal  Septembris,"  i.  e.,  August  17. 

2  See   quotations   from  sources  in  Gieseler,  2:  196  n.  G,  and  cf.  Haddan  and 
Stubbs,  3:  179,  180,  211,  371  scq. 

3  Mansi,  23:  485.    By  authority  of  the  Pope,  the  bishops  of  Normandy  decreed 
that  whosoever  should  give  alms  for  the  relief  of  Jerusalem  should   receive  in- 
dulgence for  penances  enjoined — three  years,   if   the  penance   exceeded   seven 
years,  two  years  for  a  penance  less  than  seven  years.     Those  receiving  the  in- 
dulgence must  also  say  the  Pater  Noster  three  times  each  day  or  night. 


38  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

Moreover,  the  legal  systems  of  the  Middle  Ages  were  wholly  favorable 
to  the  development  of  venality  in  the  Church.  Every  offense  against  the 
feudal  law  might  be  condoned  by  the  payment  of  a  fine,  proportioned 
to  the  gravity  of  the  offense.  In  Germany  especially,  the  old  custom  of 
Wehrgeld,  or  blood  money — by  which  murder  was  punished,  not  by  the 
death  of  the  offender,  but  by  his  payment  of  a  sum  equivalent  to  the  dead 
man's  value  to  his  family — was  a  powerful  incentive  in  the  same  direction. 
It  had  come  about  in  the  civil  law,  therefore,  that  there  was  an  elaborate 
scale  of  fines,  by  which  every  wrong  to  person  or  property  might  be  ex- 
piated. Since  the  civil  law  thus  accepted  a  money  compensation  in 
lieu  of  criminal  proceedings,  there  was  the  less  difficulty  in  transferring 
the  practice  to  the  Church.  And  so  there  was,  at  first,  no  outraging 
of  ethical  sentiments,  or  at  any  rate  very  little,  when  the  Church  prac- 
tically offered  to  forgive  any  offense  and  waive  any  penalty  for  a  sufficient 
pecuniary  consideration. 

The  moral  revolt  came  later,  when  higher  ethical  principles  had  been 
recognized  in  the  civil  law,  when  the  effects  of  such  practice  on  the 
administration  of  justice  and  the  deadening  of  the  spiritual  life  had  been 
observed;  when,  above  all,  the  shameless  greed  of  the  Church  had  aroused 
the  dormant  conscience  of  the  people  and  provoked  the  indignant  pro- 
tests of  many  doctors  of  the  Church.  For,  as  we  now  know,  Luther  was 
not  the  first  to  protest  against  both  the  theory  and  the  practice  of  indul- 
gences. Wiclif  in  England,  Hus  in  Bohemia,  and  John  of  Wesel,  at 
Luther's  own  university  of  Erfurt,  had  attacked  not  merely  the  abuses, 
but  the  foundations  of  the  practice.  John  of  Wesel  denied  that  the  Scrip- 
tures give  to  anybody,  even  the  Pope,  the  power  to  remit  a  penalty  that 
God  had  imposed;  all  that  can  be  remitted  in  any  case  is  the  penalty 
that  the  Church  has  imposed.  He  denied  that  there  is  any  Treasure  of 
merits  from  which  indulgences  can  be  dispensed,  showing  plainly  that 
the  Scriptures  give  no  countenance  to  such  a  notion,  nor  to  the  idea  of 
superabundant  merit,  or  "merit"  of  any  kind,  thus  completely  demolish- 
ing the  corner-stone  of  the  doctrine  of  indulgence.  Indulgences  therefore 
are  nothing  else  than  a  pious  fraud  practiced  on  believers.  It  is  true 
that  some  years  later,  on  a  trial  for  heresy,  he  publicly  recanted  these  and 
other  teachings  alleged  to  be  heretical,  but  nothing  can  alter  the  fact 
that  he  did  teach  them,  and  that  his  writings  were  widely  circulated  and 
influential.  One  of  the  Brothers  of  the  Common  Life,  John  Wessel, 
taught  against  indulgences,  and  did  not  retract.  These  protests  were, 
however,  sporadic,  and  the  knowledge  of  them  was  confined  to  the  learned. 
How  narrow  on  the  whole  their  effect  was  may  be  judged  from  the  fact 
that  when  Luther  began  his  protest  against  the  abuses  of  indulgences, 
he  had  never  heard  of  these  men  or  their  writings. 


THE  WOLF  IN  THE  SHEEPFOLD  39 

It  was  when  the  consciences  of  people,  especially  in  Germany,  were 
thus  beginning  to  wake  (1510)  that  the  bull  of  Julius  II,  Liquet  omnibus, 
was  published.  His  pretext  was  a  double  one — money  was  needed  for 
the  building  of  St.  Peter's,  and  also  for  the  repelling  of  the  Turk.  The 
essential  paragraph  is  the  following: 

And,  that  the  salvation  of  souls  may  be  looked  after  so  much 
the  more  devoutly,  as  they  have  greater  need  of  the  prayers  of  others 
and  are  the  less  able  to  help  themselves,  by  the  aforesaid  authority 
from  the  treasury  of  our  mother,  the  Church,  moved  by  paternal 
affection  for  the  souls  now  in"  purgatory,  that  have  departed  from 
this  world  united  to  Christ  by  love,  and  who  while  they  lived  de- 
served that  indulgence  of  this  nature  should  be  obtained  for  them  by 
intercession,  desiring  to  relieve  them  as  much  as  by  God's  help  we  are 
able,  through  divine  pity  and  the  plenitude  of  Apostolic  power,  we 
will  and  grant,  that  if  parents,  friends  or  other  Christian  believers, 
actuated  by  pity,  shall  give  a  certain  alms  for  the  work  of  building, 
in  behalf  of  the  souls  who  are  themselves  detained  in  purgatory  for 
the  expiation  of  penalties  owed — during  the  commission  of  our  Nuncio 
and  Agents,  according  to  the  regulation  of  our  agents  and  the  deputies 
and  sub-delegates  to  whom  they  may  commit  their  powers — the 
same  plenary  indulgence  will  be  invoked  by  way  of  intercession  for 
those  now  in  purgatory,  for  whom  they  have  piously  paid  the  said 
alms,  as  is  already  provided  for  the  remission  of  penalties. 

Though  the  mutterings  of  discontent  grew  louder  in  Germany,  the 
bull  of  Julius  did  not  provoke  any  open  rebellion.1  It  was  reserved  for 
his  successor,  Leo  X,  to  lay  the  mine  whose  explosion  rent  all  Europe 
asunder.  Yet  nothing  could  have  seemed  less  likely  to  produce  such 
an  effect  than  the  two  bulls  that  Leo  published,  for  he  did  little  but  repeat 
what  Julius  and  Clement  VI,  and  other  predecessors  had  said.  Never- 
theless there  were  one  or  two  significant  additions  to  his  claims,  and  a 
very  great  addition  to  the  shamelessness  with  which  his  indulgences  were 
proclaimed  and  sold  in  Germany.  As  these  things  happened  at  a  moment 
otherwise  favorable  for  a  revolt  of  Germany  against  the  Papacy,  the 
question  of  indulgences  sufficed,  and  the  dispute  that  arose  was  as  the 
letting  out  of  waters.  Leo's  first  bull,  Nos  qui  pontificatus,  says: 

Trusting  in  the  mercy  of  the  same  Omnipotent  God,  and  in  the 
authority  of  the  blessed  apostles,  Peter  and  Paul,  and  in  the  word  of 
him  who  is  the  way,  the  truth  and  the  life,  and  who  has  said  to  us, 
successors  in  the  character  of  his  blessed  Peter:  "Whatsoever  ye  bind 
on  earth  will  be  bound  also  in  heaven;  and  whatsoever  ye  loose  on 

rThe  tradesman  Julius  cheats  the  credulous  world: 
He  locks  up  Heaven,  which  he  possesses  not. 
Sell  what  is  thine,  O  Julius!     Shameless  'tis 
To  sell  to  others  what  thou  lack'st  the  most. 

Ulric  von  Hutten,  Epigrams,  Opera,  1:  225. 


40  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

earth  will  be  loosed  also  in  heaven";  and  also  in  the  plenitude  of 
apostolic  power  given  us  from  above,  we  equally  grant  and  permit 
the  full  indulgence  of  all  their  sins  and  reconciliation  with  the  Most 
High,  and  such  remission  as  has  been  customarily  given  through  our 
predecessors  to  those  going  to  the  aid  of  the  Holy  Land,  and  against 
those  perfidious  Turks,  and  such  as  have  been  granted  in  a  jubilee 
year;  and  we  decree  that  the  souls  of  all  those  who  shall  set  out  on  this 
expedition  shall  be  brought  by  the  power  of  the  holy  angels  and  re- 
main in  heaven  in  eternal  felicity.1 

The  laudable  purpose  of  these  indulgences  was  therefore  to  raise 
money  to  be  expended  in  repelling  the  Turks,  who  were  about  this  time 
threatening  an  invasion  of  Europe  (which  did  indeed  happen  in  1529, 
after  many  postponements).  But  it  was  shrewdly  suspected  that  not 
much  of  the  money  realized  would  ever  find  its  way  to  the  designated 
object.  The  second  bull  was  practically  a  repetition  of  that  of  Julius  II, 
and  is  known  as  Postquam  ad  Apostolatus,  and  is  dated  September  13, 
1517.2  It  promises  to  "those  truly  penitent  and  confessed"  who  have 
rendered  aid  in  the  building  of  St.  Peter's  church,  through  the  nuntio 
or  commissioners  appointed,  plenissimum  omnium  peccatorum  suorum 
remissionem,  and  later  plenariam  omnium  peccatorum  indulgentiam  et 
remissionem.  These  are  less  guarded  statements  than  those  made  by 
his  predecessors,  who  have  carefully  left  the  character  and  extent  of  the 
indulgence  vague,  or  have  limited  it  to  the  temporal  penalties  of  sin. 
Now  for  the  first  time,  it  is  boldly  said  that  the  most  complete  remission 
of  all  sins  is  given  in  return  for  the  payment  of  money. 

It  was,  however,  less  the  erroneous  doctrines  of  the  Church  regarding 
indulgences  that  led  Luther  to  make  his  famous  protest  of  the  theses, 
than  the  practical  methods  that  were  pursued  in  Germany.  Albert  of 
Brandenburg  had  been  appointed  Archbishop  of  Mainz  in  1514,  in  his 
twenty-fourth  year.  To  obtain  this  see,  the  oldest,  richest  and  most 
influential  in  Germany,  he  had  paid  the  Pope  24,000  florins  for  the  pallium, 
besides  the  annates,  or  first  year's  income  of  the  see,  and  certain  other 
customary  fees,  amounting  to  fully  as  much  as  the  pallium  money.  This 
large  sum  he  had  obtained  by  loan  from  the  great  Augsburg  house  of 
Fuggers,  the  Rothschilds  of  the  sixteenth  century.  This  scandalous 
transaction  was  not  an  unusual  one,  and  while  people  may  have  smiled 
cynically  at  it,  they  were  not  at  all  shocked — they  were  used  to  even  worse 
things. 

But  having  burdened  himself  with  a  heavy  debt,  the  youthful  prelate 
was  ready  to  recoup  himself  in  any  possible  way,  and  the  sooner  the  better. 
His  opportunity  came  when  Leo  proclaimed  the  indulgence.  The  papal 

1  Raynaldus,  anno  1513,  n.  3,  dated  iii  non.  Septembris. 
*Mag.  Butt,  10:  38-42. 


THE  WOLF  IN  THE  SHEEPFOLD  41 

agents,  before  they  could  begin  their  preaching  in  Germany,  must 
obtain  the  approbation  of  its  primate,  and  the  terms  on  which  permis- 
sion was  granted  them  were:  the  traffic  was  to  last  eight  years,  during 
which  time  the  preaching  of  all  other  indulgences  was  to  be  suspended; 
and  the  proceeds  were  to  be  equally  divided  between  the  Archbishop 
and  the  Pope.  The  German  primate  now  issued  a  "summary  instruction " 
to  the  preachers,  of  which  the  material  paragraphs  are  the  following: 

The  first  grace  is  the  complete  remission  of  all  sins;  and  nothing 
greater  than  this  grace  can  be  named,  since  man,  who  lives  in  sin 
and  is  bereft  of  the  favor  of  God,  obtains  complete  remission  by  these 
means  and  enjoys  God's  favor  anew;  moreover,  through  this  remis- 
sion of  sins  the  punishment  which  one  is  obliged  to  undergo  in  pur- 
gatory on  account  of  the  affront  to  the  Divine  Majesty  is  all  remitted, 
and  the  pains  of  purgatory  completely  blotted  out.  And  though 
nothing  is  worthy  to  be  exchanged  for  such  a  grace — since  it  is  a  gift 
of  God  and  an  inestimable  grace — in  order  that  Christian  believers 
may  be  the  more  easily  induced  to  procure  it,  we  establish  the  fol- 
lowing rules : 

In  the  first  place,  everyone  who  is  contrite  in  heart  and  with 
the  mouth  has  made  confession — or  at  all  events  has  the  intention 
of  confessing  at  a  suitable  time — shall  visit  at  least  the  seven  churches 
herein  indicated  for  this  purpose,  namely,  those  in  which  the  papal 
arms  are  displayed,  and  in  each  church  shall  say  five  Ave  Marias  in 
honor  of  the  five  wounds  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  whereby  our  sal- 
vation is  won,  or  the  Miserere,  which  psalm  is  very  well  adapted  for 
obtaining  forgiveness  of  sins. 

Sick  persons  or  those  otherwise  prevented  shall  visit  with  the 
same  devotion  and  prayers  as  above,  the  seven  altars  which  the 
commissioners  and  sub-commissioners  shall  have  erected  in 
the  church  where  the  cross  shall  be,  and  on  which  they  shall  hang 
the  papal  arms. 

Where,  however,  persons  are  found  so  weak  that  they  cannot 
conveniently  come  to  such  a  church,  then  shall  their  confessor  or 
penitentiary  cause  an  altar  to  be  brought  to  a  convenient  place  ap- 
proved by  him.  And  where  such  persons  visit  this  place  and  offer  up 
their  prayers  near  the  altar  or  before  it,  they  shall  deserve  the  indul- 
gence as  though  they  had  visited  the  seven  churches. 

To  those  also  that  lie  on  sick-beds,  a  holy  picture  may  be  sent, 
before  which  or  near  which  they  may  say  certain  prayers,  at  the 
discretion  of  their  confessor,  and  it  shall  happen  in  this  place  just  as 
if  they  had  visited  the  seven  churches. 

When,  however,  several  persons,  or  a  woman,  for  a  good  reason 
demand  that  they  be  excused  from  visiting  the  said  churches  and 
altars,  the  penitentiaries  may,  after  hearing  the  reason,  substitute 
a  larger  contribution  for  the  said  visit. 

Respecting  now  the  contribution  to  the  chest,  for  the  building 
of  the  said  church  of  the  chief  apostle,  the  penitentiaries  and  confes- 
sors, after  they  have  explained  to  those  making  confession  the  full 
remission  and  privileges,  shall  ask  of  them,  How  much  money  or 


42  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

other  temporal  goods  they  would  conscientiously  give  for  the  said 
most  complete  remission  and  privileges?  and  this  shall  be  done  in 
order  that  hereafter  they  may  be  brought  the  more  easily  to  contrib- 
ute.1 Also  because  the  ranks  and  occupations  of  men  are  so  manifold 
and  diverse  that  we  cannot  consider. them  individually,  and  impose 
specific  rates  accordingly,  we  have  therefore  concluded  that  the  rates 
should  be  determined  according  to  the  recognized  classes  of  persons. 

Kings  and  queens  and  their  princes,  archbishops  and  bishops 
and  other  great  rulers,  provided  they  seek  the  places  where  the 
cross  is  raised,  or  otherwise  present  themselves,  shall  pay  at 
least  five  and  twenty  Rhenish  golden  guilders.  Abbots  and  the 
great  prelates  of  cathedral  churches,  counts,  barons,  and  others 
of  the  higher  nobility,  together  with  their  consorts,  shall  pay  for 
each  letter  of  indulgence  ten  such  guilders.  Other  lesser  prelates 
and  nobles,  as  also  the  rectors  of  celebrated  places,  and  others,  who, 
either  from  permanent  incomes  or  merchandise,  or  otherwise,  enjoy 
a  total  yearly  revenue  of  five  hundred  gold  guilders,  shall  pay  six 
such  guilders.  Other  citizens  and  tradespeople,  who  usually  have 
an  income  of  two  hundred  guilders,  shall  pay  three  of  the  same. 
Other  citizens  and  tradespeople,  who  have  individual  incomes  and 
families  of  their  own,  shall  pay  one  such  guilder;  those  of  less  means, 
only  a  half.  .  . 

All  others,  however,  are  commended  to  the  discretion  of  the  con- 
fessors and  penitentiaries,  who  should  have  at  all  times  before  their 
eyes  the  completion  of  this  building,  and  should  urge  their  penitents 
to  give  more,  but  should  let  no  one  go  away  without  grace,  since 
the  good  of  Christian  believers  is  not  less  to  be  sought  than  that  of 
the  building.  Therefore  those  that  have  no  money  shall  make  their 
contribution  with  prayer  and  fasting.  For  the  kingdom  of  heaven 
should  be  open  to  the  rich  no  more  than  to  the  poor 

The  third  aforesaid  grace  is  a  letter  of  indulgence,  full  of  the 
greatest,  generally  comforting  and  hitherto  unheard-of  powers, 
which  will  always  have  its  force,  when  the  eight  years  of  our  bull 
are  at  an  end,  since  the  text  of  the  bull  says:  nunc  et  in  perpetuum 
participes  fiant,  they  will  become  partakers  now  and  forever.  . 

The  contents  of  the  same  the  preacher  and  confessor  shall  explain 
and  exalt  with  all  their  powers.  For  there  will  be  given  in  the  letter 
of  indulgence,  to  those  that  buy  it:  first,  the  right  to  choose  a  quali- 
fied confessor,  even  a  priest  of  one  of  the  mendicant  orders,  who 
may  at  once  absolve  them  from  all  censures,  even  ab  homine  lata* 
with  consent  of  the  parties;  secondly,  from  all  sins,  even  the  gravest, 
including  those  reserved  for  the  Apostolic  See,  both  in  life  and  in 
the  hour  of  death.  .  . 

The  third  principal  grace  is  the  participation  in  all  the  posses- 
sions of  the  Church  universal;  which  consists  herein,  that  contributors 
toward  said  building,  together  with  their  deceased  relatives,  who 
have  departed  this  world  in  a  state  of  grace,  shall  from  now  on,  and 

1  It  will  be  seen  that  the  principle  avowed  by  modern  corporations,  to  "tax  the 
traffic  all  that  it  will  bear,"  was  discovered  and  practised  by  the  medieval  Church. 
Truly,  there  is  nothing  new  under  the  sun. 

2  Excommunication  ab  homine  lata  was  a  censure  pronounced  against  a  judge, 
and  lasted  as  long  as  he  lived. 


THE  WOLF  IN  THE  SHEEPFOLD  43 

for  eternity,  be  partakers  of  all  petitions,  intercessions,  alms,  fast- 
ings, prayers,  in  each  and  every  pilgrimage,  even  those  to  the  Holy 
Land;  furthermore,  in  the  stations  at  Rome,  in  masses,  in  canonical 
hours,  flagellations,  and  all  other  spiritual  goods  which  have  been, 
or  shall  be,  brought  forth  by  the  universal,  most  holy  Church  mili- 
tant or  by  any  of  its  members.  Believers  who  purchase  confessional 
letters  become  participants  in  all  these  things.  Preachers  and  con- 
fessors must  insist  with  great  diligence  upon  this  power  and  persuade 
believers  not  to  neglect  to  buy  these  benefits  and  the  letter  of  indul- 
gence. 

We  also  declare  that,  in  order  to  obtain  these  two  most  important 
graces  it  is  not  necessary  to  make  confession,  or  to  visit  the  churches 
and  altars  but  merely  to  buy  the  letter  of  indulgence.  .  .  . 

The  fourth  most  important  grace  is  for  the  souls  that  are  hi 
purgatory,  namely,  a  complete  remission  of  all  sins,  which  remission 
the  Pope  brings  to  pass  through  his  intercession,  to  the  advantage 
of  said  souls,  in  this  wise:  that  the  same  contribution  shall  be  placed 
in  the  chest  by  a  living  person  as  one  would  make  for  himself.  It 
is  our  wish,  however,  that  our  sub-commissioners  should  modify 
the  regulations  regarding  contributions  of  this  kind  which  are  given 
for  the  dead,  and  that  they  should  use  their  judgment  hi  all  other 
cases,  where,  in  their  opinion,  modifications  are  desirable.  It  is 
also  not  necessary  that  the  persons  who  place  their  contributions 
in  the  chest  should  be  contrite  in  heart  and  have  orally  confessed, 
since  this  grace  is  based  simply  on  the  state  of  grace  in  which  the 
dead  departed,  and  on  the  contribution  of  the  living,  as  is  evident 
from  the  text  of  the  bull.  Moreover,  preachers  shall  exert  themselves 
to  give  this  grace  the  widest  publicity,  since  through  the  same,  help 
will  surely  come  to  departed  souls,  and  at  the  same  time  the  con- 
struction of  the  church  of  St.  Peter  will  be  effectively  and  abun- 
dantly promoted.1 

The  papal  bulls  pretended  that  indulgences  were  granted  for  the 
benefit  of  the  people,  but  the  truth  will  out  occasionally,  even  hi  ecclesias- 
tical documents,  and  this  Instruction  is  almost  cynically  frank  in  its 
commercialism.  No  reader  will  fail  to  remark  how  cunningly  it  is 
contrived  to  get  a  contribution — large  or  small,  but  as  large  as  possible — 
from  everybody  except  from  those  who  had  no  money  to  give.  So  much 
is  left  to  the  discretion  of  the  commissioners,  too,  that  they  might  do 
almost  anything  that  they  pleased.  It  is  obvious  that  the  character 
of  the  commissioner  would  determine  the  manner  in  which  these  indul- 
gences would  be  proclaimed.  An  eye-witness  has  informed  us  of  the 
pains  that  were  taken  to  impress  the  people  with  the  value  of  this  grace. 
"When  the  commissary  entered  a  town,  the  bull  was  borne  before  him 

1  Inasmuch  as  this  document  does  not  give  the  official  teaching  of  the  Church, 
but  only  the  actual  practice  in  Germany,  it  has  been  thought  sufficient  to  give 
the  translation  merely.  The  document  will  be  found  in  Latin  in  Gerdsii,  Jntro- 
ductio  in  Historiam  Evangelii  Seculo  xvi,  Vol.  1,  Appendix,  pp.  83-113,  and  m 
German  in  Walch,  15:  302-333. 


44  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

on  a  velvet  or  golden  cloth,  and  a  procession  was  formed  of  all  the  priests, 
monks,  the  town  council,  schoolmaster,  scholars,  men,  women,  maidens 
and  children,  with  banners  and  candles  and  song.  Then  they  rang  all 
bells,  sounded  all  organs.  When  he  came  to  the  church,  he  raised  a 
red  cross  in  the  middle  of  the  church,  and  hung  the  Pope's  banner  on  it. 
In  sum,  men  could  not  have  given  greater  welcome  and  honor  to  God 
himself."1  The  agent  selected  for  Germany  was  John  Tetzel,  a  native 
of  Leipzig  and  a  Dominican  monk,  a  man  of  more  than  dubious  character 
and  of  little  learning,  but  possessing  the  two  necessary  qualifications  for 
a  successful  indulgence-monger:  a  front  of  brass  and  the  voice  of  a  bull 
of  Bashan.  He  had  been  many  years  engaged  in  the  work,  and  had  been 
uniformly  successful  in  securing  large  sums  of  money.  This  more  than 
atoned,  in  the  eyes  of  his  superiors,  for  any  shortcomings  in  conduct  or 
character.  Luther  calls  him  "a  boisterous  fellow,"  and  he  was  soon 
abandoned  by  his  employers  and  supporters  after  the  trouble  began,  and 
died  not  long  after  in  disgrace  and  neglect. 

x  Sellers  of  indulgences  had  been  prohibited  some  years  previously 
(from  entering  Saxony,  less  because  of  any  ethical  objections  to  their 
trade,  probably,  than  because  the  Elector  hated  to  see  so  much  good 
(German  gold  and  silver  going  Romeward.  Germany  had  long  been 
called  "the  milch  cow  of  the  papacy,"  and  it  was  a  constant  complaint 
^that  the  Pope  got  more  revenue  from  Germans  than  their  own  princes. 
Elector  Frederick  refused  to  relax  this  prohibition  even  for  the  Archbishop 
of  Mainz,  and  so  Tetzel  was  compelled  to  halt  at  Jiiterbock,  a  town  near 
to  the  Saxon  borders  and  only  a  few  miles  from  Wittenberg.  There  he 
did  a  roaring  trade,  the  echoes  of  which  began  to  reach  Luther  in  the 
quiet  of  his  theological  studies  and  pastoral  duties.  It  is  probable  that 
he  would  have  paid  no  attention  to  the  matter,  if  his  work  as  parish 
priest  had  not  brought  the  abuse  forcibly  to  his  attention.  He  found 
that  some  of  his  people  visited  Jiiterbock  and  bought  indulgences,  and 
when  they  confessed  showed  him  these  documents  and  claimed  that 
they  were  free  from  the  penance  that  he  wished  to  impose.  He  refused 
to  grant  absolution  to  holders  of  TetzePs  indulgences,  and  preached  against 
them  from  his  pulpit.  They  then  complained  to  Tetzel,  who  publicly 
denounced  opponents  of  the  indulgence  as  heretics,  and  had  a  fire  kindled 
in  the  market-place  of  Jiiterbock,  as  he  said,  to  burn  "those  who  blas- 
phemed the  most  holy  Pope  and  his  most  holy  indulgence."2  Luther 

*  Myconius,  Historia  Reformationis,  1517-1542,  ed.  Cyprian,  Leipzig,  1718,  p.  15. 

«  Specimens  of  Tetzel's  indulgences  survive,  and  the  following  is  given  by  the 
editors  of  Luther's  Latin  Works:  "May  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  have  mercy  upon 
thee  and  absolve  thee  by  the  merits  of  his  passion.  And  I,  by  his  and  apostolic 
authority,  granted  and  committed  to  me  in  this  region,  do  absolve  thee,  first, 
from  every  sentence  of  excommunication,  major  or  minor,  however  incurred, 
and  then  from  all  thy  sins,  by  conferring  on  thee  the  fullest  remission  of  thy  sins 


THE  WOLF  IN  THE  SHEEPFOLD  45 

was  greatly  disturbed,  not  by  Tetzel's  threats,  but  because,  as  he  said, 
the  wolf  was  preying  on  his  sheep,  endangering  the  souls  of  his  people, 
by  leading  them  to  place  reliance  for  the  forgiveness  of  their  sins  and 
their  final  salvation  on  these  bits  of  purchased  paper,  rather  than  on  the 
mercy  of  God  and  the  merits  of  Christ.  Yet  what  could  a  simple  monk, 
an  obscure  professor,  do  to  stem  the  flood  that  the  leaders  of  the  Church 
had  let  loose?  As  he  looked  at  himself,  Luther  was  conscious  that  he  was 
too  ignorant  and  inexperienced,  and  too  lacking  in  influence,  to  make  any 
great  stir,  but  he  would  do  what  he  could. 

He  began  by  preaching  to  his  own  people  the  true  doctrine  of  the  for- 
giveness of  sins,  as  revealed  in  the  Scriptures.  Then  he  wrote  respectful 
but  urgent  letters  to  his  diocesan,  the  bishop  of  Brandenburg,  and  to  the 
primate  of  Germany,  the  Archbishop  of  Mainz,1  begging  them  to  inter- 
fere and  restrain  the  excesses  of  Tetzel,  whose  impudence  and  blasphemous 
utterances,  if  they  did  not  quite  go  to  the  extremes  that  the  gossip  of  the 
time  alleged,  were  at  any  rate  a  scandal.  So  little  did  he  know  of  the 
world,  so  ignorant  was  he  of  the  interest  that  Archbishop  Albert  had  in 
the  sale  of  indulgences,  that  he  was  painfully  surprised  when  he  found 
that  his  remonstrances  were  unheeded.  He  had  supposed  his  superiors 
to  be  ignorant  of  what  was  going  on,  and  needing  only  to  be  informed  to 
stop  the  abuses  at  once.  He  had  still  one  resource:  he  might  rouse  the 
attention  of  scholars  to  the  evils  that  he  deplored,  through  an  academic 
disputation.  Accordingly,  he  prepared  ninety-five  theses  regarding 
indulgences,  propositions  that  he  offered  to  debate  with  all  comers,  with 
a  view  to  eliciting  the  truth.  As  was  the  custom  in  the  university  in 
such  cases,  he  nailed  a  copy  of  the  theses  to  the  doors  of  the  Schloss- 
kirche,  October  31,  1517.  There  was  nothing  dramatic  or  exceptional 
about  the  act;  it  was  wholly  ordinary  and  commonplace;  yet  the  world 
has  ever  since  heard  in  the  strokes  of  that  hammer  the  signal  of  the  out- 
break of  the  Reformation  struggle.  The  eve  of  All-saints  day  was  chosen 
for  this  challenge,  because  this  was  one  of  the  most  frequented  feasts, 
and  would  bring  to  the  church  a  large  concourse  of  professors,  students 
and  visitors.2 

[and]  by  remitting  even  the  pains  of  purgatory,  as  far  as  the  keys  of  our  holy 
mother  Church  extend.  In  the  name  of  the  Father  and  of  the  Son  and  of  the 
Holy  Ghost.  Amen."  LOL  1:  267.  Compare  an  earlier  form  of  indulgence 
(fourteenth  century)  given  by  Collier,  "Ecclesiastical  History  of  England," 
3: 178. 

1  Myconius  says  (p.  22)  that  Luther  also  wrote  to  four  other  bishops:  Meissen, 
Frankfurt,   Zeits  and  Merseburg,  but  Luther  does  not  himself  mention  them. 
The  only  letter  extant  is  that  to  the  Archbishop  of  Mainz,  LOL  1:  255  seq. 

2  It  must  not  be  overlooked  that  Luther  was  antagonizing  not  only  the  Pope 
but  the  Elector,  in  the  doctrine  of  the  theses.    A  special  indulgence  was  attached 
to  the  veneration  of  the  relics  that  the  Elector  had  brought  from  Palestine  and 
deposited  in  the  Schlosskirche,  to  view  which  many  would  come  on  the  following 
day. 


46  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

We  must  carefully  resist  the  temptation  to  read  subsequent  history 
into  this  incident,  however,  or  into  the  theses  themselves.  They  were 
interpreted  as  a  challenge  to  the  Pope  and  the  whole  Roman  system, 
and  they  may  be  granted,  in  view  of  following  events,  to  have  had  such 
a  significance;  but  nothing  is  more  certain  than  that  Luther  did  not  so 
regard  them  at  the  time.  We  do  not  need  to  appeal  to  his  frequent 
assertions  of  his  innocent,  purely  academic  intent;1  the  theses  them- 
selves bear  on  their  surface  the  evidence  of  their  purpose.  No  Protestant 
ever  read  them  for  the  first  time  without  being  astonished  at  their  lack 
of  Protestantism.  They  are  the  theses  of  a  Catholic,  who  believes  heartily 
(or  supposes  that  he  does)  in  Church  and  Pope,  and  even  in  indulgences, 
concerned  only  to  free  the  matter  from  current  misunderstandings  on 
the  part  of  those  untrained  in  theology,  to  correct  the  abuses  that  have 
grown  up,  and  to  free  Church  and  Pope  from  undeserved  odium.  The 
author  indignantly  repudiates  the  notion  that  he  is  a  heretic,  and  asserts 
that  both  he  and  his  doctrine  are  uncondemned  by  authority  in  the 
Church,  and  only  denounced  by  the  ignorant.  Yet,  as  a  whole,  these 
propositions  are  far  more  radical  and  thorough-going  in  their  question- 
ing of  papal  powers,  and  even  of  the  whole  Catholic  system,  than  Luther 
at  all  realized.2 

But  while  we  must  be  thus  careful  in  our  interpretation,  it  is  fair  to 
read  the  theses  in  the  light  of  Luther's  own  subsequent  enlargement  and 
explanation  of  them,  save  where  there  has  evidently  been  a  progress  in 
his  ideas,  as  is  sometimes  the  case.  Caution  is  therefore  necessary  even 
here,  lest  we  give  to  the  propositions  a  meaning  that  they  did  not  have 
when  Luther  wrote  them.  And  we  must  likewise  be  on  our  guard  against 
an  attempt  to  find  in  such  a  series  of  academic  propositions  a  systematic 
and  consistent  doctrine  of  indulgences.  No  such  character  was  required 
of  them  by  the  academic  standards  of  the  time,  or  is  to  be  expected  by 
us.  Luther's  was  not  a  systematic  mind;  at  bottom  he  was  neither 
philosopher  nor  theologian,  and  at  no  time  in  his  life  did  he  show  himself 
capable  of  working  out  a  systematic  and  complete  exposition  and  defense 
of  any  doctrine.  We  need  not  be  astonished  to  find  that  some  of  the 
theses  are  not  easily  reconcilable  with  others,  or  if  some  seem  flatly  to 
contradict  others.  Yet,  while  all  this  is  true,  it  by  no  means  follows  that 
we  have  an  incoherent  collection  of  contradictory  propositions.  Two 

1  See,  among  other  passages,  LOL  2:  134,  136. 

2  The   Latin   text   of   the  Theses  is  given  in  Ranke's  Deutsche  Geschichte,  6: 
83-89   from  an  original  copy  in  the  Royal  Library  at  Berlin.      See  also  LOL, 
1:  285,  Loscher,  1:  438  (with  German  in  parallel  column).     It  is  cast  upon  the 
bronze  doors  of  the  Schlosskirche,  the  gift  of  King  Frederick  William  IV,  in  1858, 
replacing  the  wooden  doors  of  Luther's  day,  which  were  burned  in  1760.     An 
English  version  by  Wace  and  Bucheim  is  reprinted  by  Schaff,  6:  160,  and  in  the 
"Translations  and  Reprints"  of  the   University  of   Pennsylvania,  vol.  2,  no.  6, 
and  in  Appendix  I  of  this  book. 


THE  WOLF  IN  THE  SHEEPFOLD  47 

ideas  were  still  struggling  within  Luther's  soul  for  the  mastery:  the  idea 
of  God's  grace  in,  the  forgiveness  of  sin,  and  the  idea  of  the  Church  as 
the  divinely  appointed  agency  of  man's  salvation.  This  conflict  of 
ideas  is  distinctly  reflected  in  the  theses — the  author  is  striving  as  best 
he  may  to  reconcile  them.  His  experience  of  God's  grace  is  too  recent 
and  too  vivid  for  him  to  deny  it;  but  neither  is  he  yet  ready  to  give  up 
his  inherited  and  inbred  belief  in  the  divine  authority  of  the  Church. 

The  theses  begin  with  a  definition  that  goes  to  the  root  of  the  questions 
at  issue.  Luther  maintains  that  repentance,  as  Christ  taught  it,  means 
something  more  than  sacramental  penance.  It  is  not  an  act  merely,  but 
a  state  of  mind;  it  is  the  entire  life  of  the  believer.  This  repentance  is  the 
work  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  At  one  time,  as  he  wrote  Staupitz,  the  very 
word  "repentance"  was  bitter  to  him;  it  pierced  him  as  a  sharp  arrow; 
but  when  he  came  to  understand  it,  no  word  had  a  sweeter  sound.1  His 
opponents  were  quick  to  see  how  radical  this  definition  was,  and  made 
haste  to  assert  that  Christ  did  teach  sacramental  penance. 

What  value,  then,  has  sacramental  penance?  It  is  a  test  of  contri- 
tion (12).  No  one  can  be  certain  of  the  reality  of  his  own  contrition 
(39),  unless  it  seeks  punishment  (40);  therefore,  if  genuine,  repentance 
will  manifest  itself  in  mortification  of  the  flesh.  The  works  of  the  law 
are  here  put  in  their  proper  place,  as  the  fruits  of  the  new  life,  not  the 
producing  cause  of  it;  they  do  not  secure  salvation,  they  merely  show  that 
one  is  a  saved  man.  It  is  clear  that  Luther  has  no  idea  of  denying  the 
value,  the  necessity  even,  of  sacramental  penance;  but  he  would  make 
everything  else  secondary  to  the  contrition  of  the  heart. 

Having  thus  cleared  the  way,  he  proceeds  to  the  question  of  indulgences, 
and  at  one  blow  sweeps  away  the  whole  system.  He  who  is  truly  penitent 
has  no  need  of  indulgences,  since  God  himself  gives  him  plenary  pardon 
(36),  and  any  further  assurance  from  the  Pope  is  superfluous  (87).  Yet 
it  is  one  of  the  curious  inconsistences  of  the  theses  that,  having  thus 
declared  indulgences  to  be  an  impertinence,  and  as  a  hope  of  salvation 
vain  (52),  Luther  turns  about  and  says  that  "Christians  should  be  taught 
that  the  Pope's  pardons  are  useful,  if  they  do  not  trust  in  them"  (49), 
and  that  "he  who  speaks  against  the  truth  of  apostolic  pardons,  let  him 
be  anathema  and  accursed"  (71). 

Very  explicit,  however,  is  the  repudiation  of  the  extravagant  claims  that 
have  been  made  by  some  theologians  as  to  the  papal  powers  in  the  matter 
of  indulgences,  but  never  asserted  by  any  Pope  for  himself.  The  Pope 
cannot  remit  the  guilt  (culpa)  of  sin,  "except  by  declaring  it  remitted  and 
approving  the  remission  of  God"  (6),  but  such  remission  is  by  no  means 
to  be  despised  (38).  What  the  Pope  has  the  power  to  remit  is  the  canoni- 

1  LOL,  2:  130. 


48  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

cal  penalties,  or  those  imposed  by  the  authority  of  the  Church  (5,  6), 
and  he  means  only  these  whenever  he  speaks  of  plenary  remission  (20), 
so  that  none  are  entitled  to  say  in  his  name  that  all  punishment  due  for 
sin  is  remitted  by  indulgences  (21).  But  the  seventh  thesis  seems  to 
assert  more  for  the  ordinary  priest,  who  confesses  a  penitent,  than  is 
thus  allowed  to  the  Pope,  for  it  declares  that  God,  in  remitting  guilt, 
subjects  the  penitent  in  all  things  to  his  vicar,  the  priest.  This  can  be 
understood  only  in  the  light  of  Luther's  later  explanation,  which  was  a 
transcript  of  his  personal  experience  regarding  the  Church  and  the  for- 
giveness of  sins: 

Salvation  begins  in  trouble.  God  first  condemns,  then  justifies; 
first  tears  down,  then  builds  up;  first  smites,  then  heals;  first  kills, 
then  makes  alive!  God  begins  (the  work  is  his)  by  bestowing  the 
work  of  contrition.  When  this  grace  comes,  not  knowing  that  it  is 
grace,  the  man  feels  that  he  is  in  the  deepest  condemnation.  In 
himself  he  finds  no  peace  and  can  find  none  until  he  flees  for  refuge 
to  the  power  of  the  Church.  He  confesses  his  sin  and  misery  to  the 
priest  and  demands  a  solace  and  a  remedy.  The  priest,  relying  on 
the  power  given  him  for  having  compassion,  absolves  him  and  gives 
peace  to  his  conscience.  This  peace  comes  through  faith;  that  is,  the 
unquestioning  belief  of  the  promise  of  Christ  to  the  priests,  "  What- 
soever ye  shall  loose  on  earth  shall  be  loosed  in  heaven. "  The  re- 
mission is  not  for  the  sake  of  the  priest  himself,  or  of  his  power,  but 
for  the  sake  of  Christ's  word,  which  cannot  lie.  Just  so  far  as  a 
man  has  faith  in  that  word,  he  will  have  peace.  But  if  anyone 
does  not  believe  this  word,  he  will  never  be  at  rest,  though  he 
should  be  absolved  a  thousand  times  by  the  Pope  himself,  and  con- 
fess to  the  whole  world.  This,  then,  is  that  sweet  power,  for  which, 
from  the  bottom  of  our  hearts,  we  ought  to  give  thanks  to  God,  who 
has  given  such  power  to  men,  which  is  the  unique  consolation  of 
sinners  and  of  troubled  consciences,  if  only  they  believe  that  the 
promises  of  Christ  are  true.1 

The  next  matter  to  be  considered  in  the  theses  is  the  relation  of  indul- 
gences to  the  souls  in  purgatory.  Luther  is  still  a  thorough  believer  in 
purgatory,  and  remained  in  this  belief  for  some  years  after  the  publica- 
tion of  the  theses.  He  believed  in  the  power  of  the  living  to  do  much, 
by  prayers  and  fasts  and  alms,  for  the  relief  of  suffering  souls,  but  he 
did  not  believe  that  such  relief  could  come  by  way  of  indulgences.  The 
papal  remission  is  valid  only  for  the  living  (8,  10,  13),  for  canonical  pen- 
ances cannot  be  imposed  on  the  dead  and  ought  not  to  be.  As  to  souls 
in  purgatory,  the  Pope  has  no  more  power  than  any  bishop,  or  even  the 

1  While  repentance  and  faith  were  the  ground  of  the  remission  of  guilt  by  God, 
Luther  appears  to  have  held  that  the  remission  was  not  actually  completed  until 
declared  in  the  absolution  of  priest  or  Pope.  The  above  is  somewhat  abridged 
from  LOL,  2:  152  seq. 


THE  WOLF  IN  THE  SHEEPFOLD  49 

curate  of  a  parish — he  can  only  intercede  for  them,  and  his  power  of  the 
keys  cannot  be  supposed  to  extend  to  them  (25,  26).  It  would  seem  to 
be  implied  in  this  that  the  value  of  such  intercession  would  depend  on 
the  personal  sanctity  of  the  Pope,  and  his  consequent  ability  to  prevail 
with  God  in  prayer.  Officially,  as  Pope,  he  could  do  nothing  for  souls  in 
purgatory.  In  particular,  he  cannot  promise  a  share  of  the  benefits  of 
Christ  and  his  Church,  since  these  are  a  free  gift  of  God  to  all  believers, 
which  needs  no  letters  of  pardon  to  secure  it  (37);  nor  can  he  dispense 
pardons  from  the  Treasure  of  the  Church,  for  such  a  Treasure  is  not 
known  to  exist,  being  "neither  sufficiently  named  nor  known  among  the 
people  of  Christ"  (56).  No  fewer  than  ten  theses  (57-66)  are  devoted 
to  this  aspect  of  indulgences,  of  which  the  most  radical  proposition  is 
the  assertion  that  the  only  real  Treasure  of  merits  is  the  grace  of  God 
as  made  known  in  the  Gospel  (62  cf .  78) ;  and  the  most  startling  thesis 
of  all  is  the  concluding  charge  that  these  undefined  treasures  of  indulgences 
have  become  nothing  but  nets  "with  which  they  fish  for  the  riches  of 
men"  (66). 

No  part  of  the  theses  gave  greater  offense  than  this,  but  Luther  said 
in  his  explanations  that  he  wished  merely  to  dispute  these  matters,  and 
sought  only  to  learn  the  truth.  Yet  he  does  not  deny  that  these  theses 
really  expressed  the  opinion  that  he  even  then  held,1  and  in  his  later  exposi- 
tion he  went  into  the  matter  at  some  length.  "They  say  that  the  saints 
in  this  life  wrought  many  works  beyond  what  they  owed,  works  of  super- 
errogation  which  have  not  been  rewarded,  but  are  laid  up  in  the  Treasure 
of  the  Church.  With  these,  certain  worthy  compensation  is  made  by 
means  of  indulgences;  and  so  they  will  have  it  that  the  saints  make  satis- 
faction for  us."  But  Luther  denied  this  teaching,  and  showed  that  it 
was  clearly  unscriptural.  The  testimonies  of  Scripture  are  clear  that 
God  rewards  men  beyond  their  deserts,  and  Christ  has  himself  taught 
us  that  when  we  have  done  all,  we  are  still  unprofitable  servants.  He  had 
no  difficulty  in  showing  that  the  Fathers  confirmed  Scripture — Augustine, 
for  instance,  teaching  that  all  saints  need  to  pray,  Forgive  us  our  debts. 
And  he  ended  by  saying,  "From  which,  and  many  other  things  too  tedious 
to  mention,  I  conclude  that  there  are  no  superfluous  merits  of  the  saints 
which  may  help  us  in  laziness.  In  reference  to  these  things  that  I  now 
say,  I  protest  that  I  have  no  doubt,  and  I  am  prepared  to  endure  fire  and 
death  for  them,  and  I  assert  that  everyone  who  thinks  differently  is 
a  heretic.  "2 

1  In  commenting  on  Eck's  second  Obelisk,  Luther  says:  "In  that  proposition 
as  indeed  in  all  the  rest,  I  determine  nothing;  I  dispute,  but  in  my  heart  I  believe 
most  of  them  true.  Yet,  I  am  only  a  man,  having  no  authority  in  this  matter 
to  do  anything  but  dispute."  LOL,  1:  414. 

»LOL,  2:  258  sea. 


50  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

Luther  was  of  course  at  once  reproached  as  a  resister  of  the  authority 
of  the  Church  and  the  Pope.  Did  not  the  Pope  issue  indulgences,  and 
had  not  the  Church  approved  them,  at  least  by  its  silence,  for  centuries? 
Could  Luther  presume  to  think  himself  the  only  one  _ who  held  the  truth 
about  these  things?  "I  am  not  alone,"  he  replied  to  such  attacks, 
"the  truth  is  with  me  and  many  others,  those  who  have  doubted  and  still 
doubt  whether  indulgences  are  of  any  force.  The  Pope  is  also  with  me; 
for  while  he  grants  indulgences,  he  has  never  said  that  they  are  given  from 
a  Treasure  of  the  merits  of  Christ  and  the  Church.  The  whole  Church 
is  also  with  me,  for  certainly  the  Church  thinks  with  and  as  the  Pope 
thinks.  Although  St.  Thomas  and  the  rest  are  very  distinguished  men, 
the  truth  is  to  be  preferred  to  them.  They  have  often  been  accused  of 
making  mistakes.  More  than  this,  for  three  hundred  years  universities 
and  learned  men  have  persistently  studied  Aristotle,  and  do  not  under- 
stand him — and  scatter  through  the  whole  Church  error  and  pretended 
knowledge.  If  for  so  long  a  time  and  among  the  greatest  intellects  God 
has  permitted  so  much  of  cloud  and  darkness  to  reign,  why  are  we  so 
secure,  and  why  do  we  not  rather  hold  all  our  opinions  doubtful,  that 
Christ  alone  may  be  light,  righteousness,  truth,  wisdom,  all  our 
good?"* 

At  the  same  time  that  Luther  thus  boldly  questions  the  Pope's  power 
to  issue  such  indulgences  as  Tetzel  was  proclaiming,  he  takes  special 
pains  to  show  respect  for  what  he  believed  to  be  the  real  papal  powers,  and 
makes  it  clear  that  he  believes  the  abuses  of  which  he  complained  to  be 
contrary  to  the  Pope's  will  (91).  The  Pope  is  opposed  to  all  contrivances 
to  the  injury  of  holy  charity  and  truth  (74),  is  desirous  that  the  pure 
Gospel  should  be  preached  (55),  does  not  authorize  or  approve  the  exces- 
sive zeal  of  men  like  Tetzel  (70),  and  if  he  were  acquainted  with  their  exac- 
tions, he  would  prefer  that  the  basilica  of  St.  Peter  should  rather  be  burnt 
to  ashes  than  that  it  should  be  built  up  with  the  skin,  flesh  and  bones 
of  his  sheep  (50).  Poor  Luther!  How  little  he  knew  what  manner  of  man 
Leo  X  was!  The  thesis  in  which  he  said  that  the  Pope  desired  that  prayer 
should  be  made  for  him,  more  than  that  money  should  be  given  (48),  was 
regarded  at  Rome  as  an  exquisite  joke. 

The  whole  question  of  Tetzel  and  his  indulgences,  like  so  much  that 
was  once  regarded  as  settled,  has  been  reopened  in  our  day  by  Roman 
writers,  who  have  declared  that  Luther  was  guilty  of  gross  exaggeration 
and  misrepresentation  in  his  theses.  In  this  they  have  been  followed  by 
some  Protestant  writers,  whose  idea  of  impartiality  is  to  reserve  their 
severest  censures  for  members  of  their  own  party.  But  the  great  ob- 
stacle in  the  way  of  applying  a  coat  of  brilliant  whitewash  to  Tetzel 

i  LOL,  2:  266,  267. 


THE  WOLF  IN  THE  SHEEPFOLD  51 

is  the  contemporary  writings  of  his  Catholic  supporters.  He  was  ac- 
cused of  saying, 

Sobald  der  Pfennig  im  Kasten  klingt 
Die  Seele  aus  dem  Fegfeuer  springt. 

Luther  refers  to  this  and  condemns  it  in  theses  27  and  28,  but  Prierias 
took  up  the  gauntlet  and  defended  the  saying  as  pure  Catholic  doctrine, 
to  be  accepted  as  literally  true.1  Luther  represents  indulgence-mongers 
as  going  to  the  extreme  of  declaring  that  even  if  a  man  had  violated  the 
mother  of  God,  the  indulgence  would  remove  his  guilt  (75),  and  called 
this  " madness";  but  Prierias  rejoined:  "To  assert  that  one  who  has  the 
plenitude  of  power  from  the  Pope  to  pardon  can  absolve  from  guilt  in 
the  case  mentioned  by  the  key  of  order,  and  from  punishment  by  the  key 
of  jurisdiction,  is  not  to  think  insanely,  but  rationally.""  When  the 
confidential  agent  of  Leo  X  thus  approved  the  worst  extravagances 
attributed  to  Tetzel,  it  is  evident  that  no  modern  afterthoughts  can  undo 
his  act.  No  possible  amount  of  apologetic  disinfectants  will  make  the 
name  of  Tetzel  smell  sweet  again.3 

There  has  also  been  revived  a  theory,  first  advanced  by  Cochlaeus, 
to  account  for  Luther's  opposition  to  Tetzel  and  the  indulgence-monger- 
ing,  that  it  was  at  bottom  nothing  else  than  jealousy  of  a  rival  order: 
the  real  grievance  being,  not  that  indulgences  were  sold,  but  that  the 
business  had  been  committed  to  the  Dominicans  instead  of  the  Augustin- 
ians.  According  to  Cochlaeus,  Staupitz  was  the  instigator  of  the  cam- 
paign against  indulgences,  but  Luther,  whom  he  had  attempted  to  use 
as  an  instrument,  outstripped  and  eclipsed  him,  because  of  an  ardent 
nature.4  Cochlaeus  is  so  far  right,  that  the  Augustinian  order  had  been 
previously  concerned  in  proclaiming  and  defending  indulgences.  A 
member  of  Luther's  own  monastery  at  Erfurt,  Johann  von  Paltz,  in  his 
Supplementum  Coelifodinae  (1502),  had  undertaken  to  expound  and 
defend  the  doctrine  of  indulgence.  He  taught  the  doctrine  in  its  most 
extreme  form,  setting  no  limits  to  the  Pope's  power  to  absolve  from  sin 
and  release  souls  from  purgatory.  It  is  not  likely  that  Luther  knew 
anything  about  this  book,  which  was  published  three  years  before  he 

1LOL,  1:357. 

2  Non  est  insanire,  sed  sane  sentire.      LOL,  1:  371. 

8  The  impression  is  general  among  Protestants  that,  since  the  Reformation, 
the  Roman  Church  has  done  away  with  the  sale  of  indulgences.  That  such  is 
not  yet  the  case,  but  that  she  has  in  modern  times,  where  not  actively  opposed 
by  Protestantism,  not  only  preserved  this  abuse,  but  managed  ingeniously  to 
join  it  with  an  appeal  to  the  passion  for  gambling  so  strong  in  many  races,  let 
this  extract  testify,  from  an  advertisement  in  a  Brazilian  newspaper  of  1910: 
"RAFFLE  OF  SOULS.  During  the  last  raffle  of  souls  the  following  numbers  .  .  . 
gained  the  prize,  and  those  that  have  had  the  good  luck  to  draw  these  numbers 
may  be  certain  that  their  dead  loved  ones  are  liberated  from  the  flames  of  pur- 
gatory." 

4  Acta  et  Scripta  Martini  Luther i,  pp.  3,  4. 


52  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

entered  the  convent.  But  if  he  did  not  know  his  order's  previous  his- 
tory in  connection  with  indulgences,  Staupitz  must  have  been  better 
informed.  Yet  no  one  can  read  the  letters  and  sermons  of  Luther  of 
this  early  time  without  coming  to  the  conclusion  that  he  was  not  urged 
by  Staupitz  to  compose  and  post  his  theses,  or  moved  by  any  motive 
save  that  which  he  avowed:  the  good  of  his  people  and  the  honor  of  the 
Church.  He  thought  to  promote  both,  not  to  advance  either  his  own 
fortunes  or  those  of  his  order. 

Those  who  have  seen  in  this  question  of  indulgences  only  a  trifling 
matter,  which  circumstances  made  the  occasion  of  a  formidable  schism 
in  the  Church,  have  not  apprehended  its  significance,  any  better  than 
Luther  did  at  the  tune.  He  had  no  notion  of  raising  a  standard  of 
revolt  against  Church  and  Pope,  or  of  denying  what  he  conceived  to  be 
the  legitimate  functions  of  either.  But  when  he  taught  that  Christ 
had  made  complete  satisfaction  for  all  sins,  and  that  the  penitent  is 
assured  of  participation  in  those  benefits  by  faith,  he  swept  away  the 
whole  Roman  system  of  works  and  merits,  and  made  the  *theology  of 
Thomas  Aquinas  an  absolute  nullity.  If  this  were  true,  indulgences  were 
an  impertinence,  and  the  sale  of  them  a  public  scandal.  No  attack  on 
the  Church,  its  theology  and  practice,  could  have  been  more  formi- 
dable than  this;  and  the  propounder  of  the  theses  had  as  yet  no  adequate 
idea  of  what  he  had  done. 

Hence  it  was  that  Luther  was  amazed  at  the  consequences  of  his  act. 
The  theses  were  at  once  printed,  though  not  by  his  permission  or  wish, 
reprinted  again  and  again,  scattered  broadcast  over  Germany,  read  by 
many  thousands  of  the  people  of  all  ranks,  discussed,  and  by  the  vast 
majority  welcomed  with  loud  acclaim.  It  was  the  first  great  demonstra- 
tion of  the  power  of  the  printing-press.  Gutenberg  had  made  a  Luther 
possible,  and  insured  that  he  should  not  be  suppressed  by  authority 
without  a  hearing.  And  if  Luther  did  not  understand  the  significance 
)f  his  theses,  Germany  did.  The  quick  and  enthusiastic  response  of 
the  people  was  not  to  their  doctrine  so  much  as  to  their  practical  bearing. 
Men  everywhere  were  tired  of  the  extortion  of  Rome,  they  had  been 
exploited  to  the  limit  of  their  endurance  and  beyond,  and  they  heard 
gladly  the  note  of  rebellion  in  the  theses.  They  only  needed  an  excuse 
to  rebel  against,  they  but  demanded  a  champion  to  fight,  this  greedy 
plunderer  of  Italy.  The  instinct  of  the  people,  rather  than  any  logical 
deduction  from  any  or  from  all  of  his  propositions,  told  them  that  here 
was  a  man  of  clear  perceptions,  of  undaunted  spirit,  ready  to  challenge 
iniquity  in  the  highest  places,  willing  to  dare  all  for  what  he  believed 
with  all  his  soul  to  be  the  truth — in  short,  the  very  leader  for  whom  they 
were  longing.  And  the  heart  of  Germany  was  given  to  Luther  for  life! 


CHAPTER  III 

IN  CONFLICT  WITH  THE   POPE 

WHEN  some  sufficient  answer  could  be  given  to  Luther's  theses,  the 
indulgence  traffic  was  already  at  an  end  in  Germany.  The  first  attempt 
at  a  reply  came  from  Tetzel.  He  .proposed  to  hold  two  disputations, 
both  at  Frankfort-on-Oder,  the  first  "for  the  defense  of  the  Catholic 
faith  and  for  the  honor  of  the  apostolic  see,"  the  second  simply  "for 
the  honor  of  the  apostolic  see."1  The  first  theses,  to  the  number  of 
106,  were  devoted  to  the  explanation,  reassertion  and  defense  of  indul- 
gences; the  second  series  of  fifty  were  devoted  to  magnifying  the  Pope's 
power.  The  first  series  rather  strengthened  than  weakened  Luther's 
cause,  by  showing  that  he  had  not  misstated  the  case  between  himself 
and  his  opponents.  They  have  been  appropriately  published  in  Luther's 
works  as  "  documents  for  promoting  the  Reformation. "  Tetzel  complains 
that  Luther  had  not  truly  represented  his  manner  of  preaching,  that  with- 
out having  heard  him  the  Wittenberg  professor  had  accepted  the  exag- 
gerated reports  of  others.  It  is  likely  that  many  things  were  attributed 
to  Tetzel  that  ought  to  be  credited  to  his  subordinates,  that  some  things 
were  misunderstood,  and  that  some  were  perverted.  But  still,  his 
own  words  stand  against  him.  In  his  propositions  he  reaffirmed  the  things 
that  Luther  especially  condemned:  asserted  that  repentance  taught  by 
Christ  is  the  same  as  sacramental  penance;  that  satisfaction  must  be 
made  by  men,  by  suffering  the  unremitted  part  of  the  penalty  of  sin, 
either  in  this  life  or  in  purgatory;  and  many  of  the  other  things  that  he 
was  charged  with  preaching.  He  taught  besides,  that  those  who  had 
neglected  salvation  until  their  dying  day,  if  they  should  feel  the  least 
contrition,  might  have  their  eternal  punishment  changed  into  temporal; 
and  although  this  punishment  should  be  very  great,  it  could  be  quickly 
relaxed  by  plenary  pardons,  or  indulgences.  In  other  words,  however 
great  a  sinner  a  man  might  have  been  all  his  life,  his  friends  ought  not 
to  be  discouraged.  It  was  at  least  possible  that  he  was  in  purgatory, 
and  if  in  purgatory  his  great  sufferings  could  be  at  once  ended  by  the 
purchase  of  a  papal  pardon  for  him. 

In  regard  to  the  power  of  the  Pope,  Tetzel  maintained  the  extreme 
papal  doctrine.  In  this  case,  however,  the  important  thing  is  not  what 
he  taught,  but  the  fact  that  he  devotes  a  separate  discussion  to  the 

1  For  both  series  of  Tetzel's  theses,  see  Appendix  II. 

53 


.54  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

position  of  the  Pope.  The  special  defense  indicated  the  point  that  needed 
special  defense.  Luther  had  not  directly  attacked  the  Pope's  power,  but 
first,  the  current  doctrine  of  repentance,  and  then  the  sale  of  indulgences 
as  based  on  that  doctrine.  But  the  discussion  had  not  even  reached  its 
second  stage  before  it  was  disclosed  that,  as  indulgences  were  issued 
by  the  authority  of  the  Pope,  the  Pope's  authority  was  to  be  questioned 
and  defined.  Luther  complained  that  his  opponents  attempted  to  put 
the  Pope  between  them  and  harm.  So  they  did.  They  had  a  right  so 
to  do,  for  they  were  acting  in  his  name.  To  attack  them  was  really  to 
attack  the  Pope,  unless  they  had  gone  beyond  their  commission.  Some 
have  thought  that  Tetzel  and  the  rest  acted  unskillfully  in  directing  the 
controversy  toward  the  Pope,  and  that  abler  men  might  have  confined 
it  to  the  one  question  of  indulgences.  A  better  understanding  of  the 
case  shows  that  they  had  no  choice;  they  were  powerless  in  the  grip 
of  an  overmastering  and  merciless  logic.  And  so  was  Luther;  he  had 
called  up  a  spirit  that  would  not  down  at  his  bidding.  For  the  present, 
at  least,  the  battle  must  rage  about  the  Pope. 

TetzePs  disputations  were  not  held  until  January,  1518;  his  "Posi- 
tions" were  published  before  the  close  of  the  year  1517.  About  the 
same  time,  Sylvester  Prierias,  Master  of  the  Sacred  Palace,  Papal  Inquisi- 
tor, etc.,  published  his  "  Dialogue  against  the  presumptuous  conclusions 
•of  Martin  Luther,"  which  he  dedicated  to  Leo  X.  It  might  be  called 
a  dialogue,  because  it  gave  alternately  a  proposition  from  Luther  and  a 
paragraph  of  reply  by  Prierias.  It  is  slight,  hastily  written  and  touches 
the  questions  at  issue  in  a  dainty,  condescending  way.  Prierias  was  in 
Rome,  where  the  Pope's  power  enveloped  all  things  like  an  atmosphere, 
and  he  had  no  conception  of  the  gravity  of  the  situation,  or  of  the  charac- 
ter of  the  man  with  whom  he  was  dealing.  Copies  of  his  book  reached 
Wittenberg  in  January,  1518.  Luther  did  not  at  first  know  how  to  treat 
it;  for  a  time  he  thought  no  notice  should  be  taken  of  it,  pretending  to 
think  that  it  was  a  forgery — that  some  obscure  person,  writing  in  the 
name  of  a  high  papal  official,  wished  to  provoke  him  to  reply."1 

The  Dialogue  of  Prierias  was  mainly  on  the  power  of  the  Pope.  He, 
too,  saw  that  indulgences  involved  the  papacy,  and  that  the  question 
of  the  Pope's  power  came  logically  before  the  question  of  indulgences. 
He  began  by  laying  down  four  fundamenta,  or  primary  principles :  1 .  The 
Roman  Church  is  virtually  the  Church  universal,  and  the  Pope  is  virtually 

1  LOL,  1 :  341  seq.  Recent  investigations  have  shown  that  Prierias  did  not 
""  rush  in  where  angels  fear  to  tread,"  but  had  been  requested  by  Leo  to  give  an 
expert  opinion  on  the  theses.  His  dialogue  was,  therefore,  a  semi-official  refutation 
•of  Luther's  doctrine,  especially  those  theses  that  related  to  the  papal  supremacy. 
See  especially  Bohmer,  Luther  im  Lichte  der  neueren  Forschung.  Leipzig,  1906; 
2nd.  ed.  1910. 


IN  CONFLICT  WITH  THE  POPE  55 

the  Roman  Church.  2.  The  universal  Church  is  infallible,  and  this 
includes  both  the  infallibility  of  an  ecumenical  council  and  the  infalli- 
bility of  the  Pope.  3 .  Whoever  does  not  rely  on  the  teaching  of  the  Roman 
Church  and  of  the  Roman  Pontiff  as  an  infallible  rule  of  faith,  from  which 
even  the  Scripture  draws  strength  and  authority,  is  a  heretic.  4.  Not 
only  what  the  Roman  Church  teaches,  but  also  what  the  Church  does, 
is  to  be  accepted  as  infallible  and  of  divine  authority;  its  example  is  as 
potent  as  its  word.  From  all  this  it  follows  that  he  who  says  the  Roman 
Church  cannot  do  in  reference  to  indulgences  what  in  fact  it  has  already 
done,  is  a  heretic.1 

Luther  changed  his  mind  and  wrote  a  hasty  but  vigorous  reply  to  the 
Dialogue.  He,  too,  began  with  foundation  principles.  The  first  is  taken 
from  the  Apostle  Paul:  "Prove  all  things,  hold  fast  to  that  which  is 
good."  And  again,  "If  an  angel  from  heaven  preach  to  you  another 
Gospel  than  that  which  ye  have  received,  let  him  be  anathema. "  The 
second  is  from  Augustine:  "Only  to  those  books  that  are  called  canoni- 
cal have  I  taught  that  this  honor  should  be  given,  that  I  must  firmly 
believe  that  no  writer  of  them  has  erred.  As  to  the  rest,  however  strong 
they  may  be  in  doctrine  and  holiness,  I  do  not  therefore  believe  a  thing 
because  they  have  thought  it  true."  The  third  is  from  Pope  Clement 
VI,  and  forbids  indulgence-sellers  to  promise  the  people  anything,  except 
it  is  expressly  contained  in  their  letters  of  instruction.  Luther  thought 
that  these  principles,  properly  understood,  completely  refuted  Prierias 
and  his  book.2 

The  fundamenta  of  these  two  opponents  show  that  they  were  the  repre- 
sentatives, not  of  new  but  of  old  Church  parties.  These  parties,  in  the 
lapse  of  time  and  by  change  of  circumstances,  had  advanced;  sharp  con- 
flicts had  led  to  clearer  definition  and  more  pronounced  assertion.  Prier- 
ias, a  little  more  precisely  than  earlier  writers,  claimed  the  infallibility 
of  the  Pope,  as  being  virtually  the  infallibility  of  the  Church.  Luther, 
on  the  other  hand,  claims  with  more  distinctness  than  usual  the  sole 
infallibility  of  the  canonical  Scriptures,  and  the  right  to  question  anything 
not  taught  in  them.  He  does  this,  however,  in  the  words  of  Augustine. 
The  controversy,  by  an  inevitable  movement,  freed  itself  from  accidental 
concernments;  what  at  first  appeared  to  be  only  the  case  of  indulgences 
was  coming  out  nakedly  as  the  case  of  the  Pope. 

The  papal  cause  was  on  the  defensive,  and  therefore  at  a  disadvantage. 
It  was  also  thus  far  unfortunate  in  its  advocates;  TetzePs  "Positions" 

1  After  laying  down  these  fundamenta,  Prierias  banteringly  says,  Age,  tune, 
Marline,  et  tuas  conclusiones  in  medium  offeras. 

2  The  Responsio  fills  about  sixty  pages  of  Luther's  works.    He  says  it  was  writ- 
ten in  two  days.    Ecce,  mi  R.  P.  cursim  et  duobus  diebus  tibi  haec  reddidi  quid  visa 
sunt  levicula,  quae  to  opposuisti,  ideo  extempore  et  ut  in  buccam  venit  tibi  respondi. 
LOL,  2:  67. 


56  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

were  not  forceful;  it  might  be  suspected  that  Prierias  was  a  simpleton.1 
A  third  adversary,  John  Eck,  was  a  man  of  more  importance — vice-chan- 
cellor of  the  university  of  Ingolstadt,  a  doctor  of  theology,  a  celebrated 
disputant  and  author — and  even  Luther  spoke  of  him  as  a  man  of  real 
earning  and  culture.2  He  wrote  thirty  " Obelisks,"  as  he  called  them, 
against  Luther's  theses.  As  they  were  written  early  in  the  controversy, 
about  the  beginning  of  the  year  1518,  they  treated  principally  the  doc- 
trine of  repentance  and  the  character  of  the  sufferings  in  purgatory; 
they  touched  lightly,  hardly  at  all,  on  the  question  of  the  Pope's  power. 
They  were  brief  criticisms  of  selected  propositions  from  the  theses,  free, 
incisive,  outspoken,  but  there  was  little  in  them  that  went  beyond  the 
bounds  of  legitimate  controversy.  There  were  several  things,  however, 
that  made  them  particularly  worrying  to  Luther  and  his  friends,  chief 
of  which  was  the  fact  that  Eck  had  but  recently  become  acquainted  with 
the  Wittenberg  professors,  and  had  shown  a  marked  disposition  to  cul- 
tivate their  friendship.  His  attack  on  Luther  was  of  the  nature  of  a 
surprise.  Besides,  Luther  complained  that  Eck  treated  him  ungener- 
ously, called  him  violent,  a  Bohemian,  a  heretic,  seditious,  rash,  impu- 
dent; said  he  was  inept,  unlearned,  a  contemner  of  the  Pope,  and  other 
things  little  less  unpleasant. 

Eck  was  probably  too  harshly  judged,  and  Luther  was  oversensitive. 
The  Ingolstadt  professor  was  anxious  to  avoid  a  break  with  his  new  friends, 
and  explained  that  he  had  written  his  "Obelisks"  at  the  instance  of  his 
diocesan,  the  bishop  of  Eichstadt,  and  for  his  use  alone;  that  they  were 
not  printed  or  intended  for  general  circulation,  and  he  was  mortified 
that  they  had  gotten  abroad.  They  had  been  written  hastily,  and, 
not  intending  them  for  the  public,  he  had  written  them  with  less  reserve 
than  he  would  have  used  if  he  had  ever  expected  them  to  be  seen  by 
Luther,  whom  he  had  no  wish  to  injure.  These  things  he  said  in  a  letter 
to  Carlstadt,  who,  as  he  had  heard,  was  preparing  a  reply  to  the  "Obel- 
isks." He  wished  to  avoid  a  controversy  with  the  Wittenbergers  and 
to  retain  their  friendship,  but  his  letter  failed  of  its  purpose — Carlstadt 
had  already  replied  in  disputations  at  the  university.3  Luther  replied 

1  He  was  already  growing  old,  and  complains  of  faculties  made  sluggish  by 
age  and  disease.     He  did  not  at  once  reply  to  Luther's  rejoinder.     It  was  in  No- 
vember, 1519,  that  his  Replica  was  printed  at  Rome.     His  Epitoma  came  later. 
In  1520  Luther  printed  it  with  brief  notes,  as  he  did  the  Replica.    His  first  notice 
of  Prierias  was  comparatively  moderate  in  tone.     He  closed  his  Responsio  by 
advising  Prierias,  if  he  should  continue  the  controversy,  to  come  better  prepared: 
Vide  ut  Thomam  tuum  armatiorem  producas  in  arenum.     Later  he  used  more  bitter- 
ness.    In  private  letters  he  ridiculed  the  mistakes  of  Prierias,  and  quoted  the 
wits  of  Basel  who  called  him  the  cook  instead  of  the  Master  of  the  sacred  palace — 
magirum  (magister)  palatii  sacri. 

2  Insignis   veraeque  ingeniosae  eruditionis,    et   eruditi  ingenii    homo. — LOL,    1: 
406. 

*Carlstadt's  Condusiones  and  Defensio  may  be  found  in  Loscher,  2:  78seq. 


IN  CONFLICT  WITH  THE  POPE  57 

later  in  his  "Asterisks";1  and,  as  is  not  unusual  in  controversy,  he  attrib- 
uted to  Eck  offensive  epithets  that  the  latter  had  not  used,  while  he 
used  others  toward  Eck  even  more  offensive  than  those  of  which  he 
complained.  The  controversy,  of  no  great  importance  in  itself,  had  an 
important  influence  in  determining  the  course  of  events:  it  called  out 
Carlstadt,  Luther's  first  active  associate  in  his  work  against  indulgences, 
and  it  produced  a  permanent  estrangement  between  Eck  and  his  oppo- 
nents. Both  parties  had  just  enough  of  controversy  to  make  them  wish 
for  more;  each  had  a  score  to  settle.  Eck,  in  particular,  was  restless, 
enterprising,  unforgetting,  unforgiving,  and  wished  and  watched  for  an 
opportunity  to  meet  Luther  and  Carlstadt  on  another  field.  Thus  the 
"Obelisks,"  a  slight  thing,  of  which  he  thought  little  and  from  which 
he  expected  nothing,  was  Eck's  first  step  toward  becoming  a  prominent 
actor  in  a  great  drama. 

Things  had  moved  rapidly.  In  less  than  three  months  after  the  theses 
were  posted  Tetzel,  Prierias  and  Eck  had  written  replies  to  them,  and 
Luther  was  not  long  silent.  Not  only  the  questions  in  dispute,  but  also 
the  disputants  themselves  were  brought  prominently  before  the  public. 
It  was  much  that  the  parties  could  be  clearly  discriminated  and  the 
fundamental  principles  of  each  be  understood,  but  in  every  dispute  there 
is  an  interest  that  attaches  to  the  disputants,  quite  independent  of  the 
importance  of  the  questions  involved.2  It  was  of  prime  importance, 
therefore,  that  Luther  should  have  the  sympathy  of  the  people;  and  his 
evident  acquaintance  with  the  subjects  discussed,  his  bold  and  incisive 
style,  his  courage  and  earnestness,  all  conciliated  favor.  His  adversaries' 
lack  of  the  things  that  most  pleased  in  him,  put  them  at  a  disadvantage; 
the  contempt  that  men  had  for  them  was  carried  over  to  the  cause  they 
advocated.  Had  they  been  abler  men,  or  had  he  been  less  able,  had  they 
disputed  better  or  he  not  so  well,  things  might  have  gone  differently. 
But  this  does  not  state  the  whole  case.  The  cause  was  something,  the 
personal  character  and  skill  of  the  disputants  was  something,  but  their 
manner  of  disputing  was  also  something.  What  is  proof  at  one  time  is 
not  proof  at  another— every  age  has  standards  of  authority  peculiar  to 
itself.  Luther  appealed  to  men's  moral  instincts,  to  the  older  Fathers 
of  the  Church,  and  to  the  authority  of  Scripture;  his  adversaries  used 
scholastic  methods  that  were  already  discredited,  quoted  scholastic 
authorities  that  had  already  been  cast  down  from  their  preeminence, 
and  appealed  to  the  authority  of  the  Pope,  which  was  itself  in  dispute. 

!LOL,  1:  406  seq. 

!  "Between  ourselves,"  Goethe  wrote  to  Knebel,  "there  is  nothing  interesting 
in  the  whole  Reformation  except  the  character  of  Luther;  and  he,  moreover,  is 
the  only  thing  which  made  an  actual  impression  on  the  multitude."  (Quoted  by 
Eucken,  "The  Problem  of  Life,"  p.  273.)  This  is  an  exaggeration,  but  has  a  large 
basis  of  truth. 


58  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

They  were  using  antiquated  weapons;  they  were  turning  wheels  that 
were  out  of  gear.  Luther  belonged  to  the  coming,  his  adversaries  to 
the  receding,  age. 

It  was  the  Dialogue  of  Prierias  that  first  indicated  the  attitude  of  Leo  X 
to  Luther  and  his  teaching.  In  February,  1518,  he  was  already  consider- 
ing what  ought  to  be  done.  He  wrote  to  Gabriel  Venetus,  General 
of  the  Augustinians:  "I  wish  you  would  undertake,  by  the  authority 
that  your  office  gives  you,  to  restrain  Martin  Luther,  a  monk  of  your  order, 
who,  as  I  suppose  you  know,  is  unsettling  matters  in  Germany  by  teach- 
ing men  to  follow  new  doctrines.  If  you  act  promptly,  it  will  be  easy  to 
extinguish  the  flame  now  just  kindled.  For  disturbances,  while  small  and 
only  rising,  cannot  withstand  vigorous  measures  of  repression.  But  if 
you  delay,  and  the  evil  gains  strength,  I  fear  that  when  we  wish  to  put 
the  fire  out  we  cannot  do  it."1  This  indicates  prudence  and  a  clear 
understanding  of  what  ought  to  be  done  in  a  given  understood  case ;  the 
difficulty  was  to  understand  this  particular  case.  Luther's  work  might 
come  to  naught  if  left  alone;  opposition  might  make  matters  worse; 
prompt,  vigorous  measures  might  be  effective.  Who  could  tell  which  was 
best?  We  understand  the  situation  far  better  than  the  Pope  did,  but 
it  is  still  difficult  to  say  what  would  have  been  wisest. 

The  Pope,  not  knowing  exactly  what  to  do,  vacillated.  That  he  did 
so  is  hardly  to  be  reckoned  against  him;  certainly  his  failure  to  meet  and 
overcome  the  difficulties  of  the  situation  was  not  due  to  his  lack  of  ability 
as  a  man,  or  his  position  as  a  ruler.  His  history  was  unique.  He  was 
perhaps  the  only  one  of  the  long  line  of  Popes  who  from  his  birth  was 
designed  and  educated  for  that  high  office.  He  was  born  Giovanni  di 
Medici,  December  11,  1475,  and  his  father  was  the  celebrated  Lorenzo 
di  Medici,  the  greatest  of  the  makers  of  Florence.  At  thirteen  he  was 
made  a  cardinal  by  Innocent  VIII,  at  seventeen  he  took  up  his  residence 
at  Rome.  His  own  character,  conduct  and  attainments  cooperated 
with  the  powerful  interest  in  his  favor,  and  on  the  death  of  Julius  II 
(February  21,  1513)  he  was  elected  Pope  (March  11),  when  he  was  thirty- 
seven  years  old,  taking  the  papal  throne  with  the  name  of  Leo  X.  He 
had  enjoyed  a  long  experience  in  the  ordinary  affairs  of  Rome  and  the 
Papacy,  but  this,  in  the  long  run,  instead  of  being  of  service  to  him,  was 
probably  a  disadvantage.  It  produced  in  him  the  habit  of  feeling  that 
what  had  been  would  continue  to  be,  and  he  was  therefore  quite  unpre- 
pared for  the  coming  revolution.  At  first  he  took  only  a  personal  interest 
in  Luther's  affairs;  he  thought  Brother  Martin  a  fine  genius;  and  as  to  the 
controversy  about  indulgences,  it  was  only  a  squabble  among  monks.2 

1  Walch,  15:  427.    The  letter  is  dated  February  3,  1518. 

2  The  words  attributed  to  Leo  X  when  he  first  heard  of  the  controversy  are: 
Che  fra  Martino  aveva  un  bellesimo  ingenio,  e  che  coteste  erano  invidie  fratesche. 


IN  CONFLICT  WITH  THE  POPE  69- 

But  after  a  while  the  case  seemed  to  grow  in  importance,  and  he  thought 
that  it  ought  to  receive  attention.  Accordingly,  on  May  5,  he  instructed 
Cardinal  Thomas  de  Vio,  usually  called  Cajetan,  whom  he  sent  as  a  legate 
to  Germany,  to  take  steps  toward  silencing  Luther,  or  at  least  toward 
prejudicing  the  princes  against  him.  On  April  3,  Cardinal  Raphael  di 
Rovere  had  written  to  the  Elector  of  Saxony,  commanding  him  not  to- 
protect  Luther's  person  or  his  books.  As  the  dangers  were  arising, 
Luther  was  thinking  of  putting  himself  under  the  Pope's  protection. 
Even  while  he  was  writing  his  "Asterisks,"  he  had  in  mind  a  detailed 
explanation  of  his  theses;  and  having  written  this,  he  sent  it,  together  with 
a  letter  dated  May  30,  1518,  to  his  friend  Staupitz,  requesting  him  to 
convey  it,  in  the  most  convenient  way,  to  the  Pope.1 

This  letter  to  Staupitz  is  manly  and  generous.  The  first  part  recalled 
his  obligations  to  the  writings  of  his  friend,  and  describes  how  it  was  that 
he  came  to  understand  and  to  love  the  true  doctrine  of  repentance; 
and  how,  when  he  had  learned  it,  the  preachers  of  indulgences  came  and 
filled  him  with  indignation  by  teaching  their  falsehoods;  how  at  last  he 
determined  to  call  their  teachings  in  question;  and  how,  when  they  could 
not  answer  him,  they  pretended  that  he  was  weakening  the  authority  of 
the  Pope.  This,  he  said,  was  why  he,  a  diffident  man,  a  lover  of  quiet, 
had  ventured  to  come  before  the  public.  He  wished  the  Pope  to  under- 
stand his  cause,  and,  therefore,  he  had  sent  his  book,  that  it  might  be  a 
sort  of  advocate  for  him  against  the  attacks  of  his  enemies.  But  he  did 
not  wish  his  friend  to  be  involved  in  his  dangers,  that  he  would  bear 
alone.  His  conclusion  is  tinged  with  sadness,  but  shows  no  lack  of  cour- 
age; it  seems  to  come  from  one  who  felt  that  the  way  before  him  was 
dark,  and  that  he  walked  by  faith,  not  by  sight.  He  says:  "To  those 
threatening  friends  of  mine  I  have  no  answer  except  the  saying  of  Reuch- 
lin,  '  He  who  is  poor  fears  nothing,  has  nothing  to  lose. '  I  neither  have 
nor  desire  riches.  My  fame  and  honor,  if  I  have  them,  my  enemies  are 
busy  destroying.  One  thing  is  left:  my  poor,  weak  body,  weary  with 
trouble.  If  by  force  or  treachery  they  should  take  that  from  me,  they 
wo  aid  only  make  me  poorer  by  an  hour  or  two  of  life.  My  sweet  Redeem- 
er and  Propitiator,  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  is  enough  for  me:  to  him  will 
I  sing  as  long  as  I  live. " 

With  the  letter  to  Staupitz  was  also  sent  a  letter  to  the  Pope,  whom  he 
addressed  humbly,  but  with  dignity  and  candor.  "I  have  heard,  most 

Luther,  however,  in  his  Table  Talk  gives  a  somewhat  different  version  that  had 
come  to  his  ear:  "A  drunken  Dutchman  wrote  them  [the  theses];  when  he  has 
slept  out  his  sleep,  and  is  sober  again,  he  will  then  be  of  another  mind." 

1  The  title  is :  Resolutiones  Disputationum  de  Indulgentiarum  virtute,  R.  P.  ac  sacrae 
iheologiae  doctoris  Martini  Lutheri  Augustaniani  Vuittembergensis.  Ad  Leonem 
decimem  Pontif.  omnibus  modis  summum.  Candidum  et  liberum  lectorem  opto. 
LOL,  2:  137. 


60  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

blessed  Father,"  so  he  begins,  "that  you  have  heard  a  very  bad  report 
of  me,  by  which,  as  I  learn,  certain  friends  of  mine  have  made  my  name 
grievously  to  stink  with  you  and  those  about  you,  as  if  I  were  seeking  to 
demolish  the  authority  and  power  of  the  keys  and  of  the  chief  Pontiff. 
That  I  am  hence  accused  of  being  a  heretic,  an  apostate,  a  perfidious  per- 
son, yea,  called  a  thousand  names,  or  rather  nicknames.  Ears  are 
horrified,  eyes  are  stopped!  But  I  have  this  source  of  confidence,  an 
innocent  and  quiet  conscience. "  He  then  goes  over  somewhat  the  same 
ground  as  in  his  letter  to  Staupitz,  except  that  he  gives  more  in  detail  a 
history  of  his  experience  with  the  sellers  of  indulgences.  Among  us,  he 
says,  in  these  last  days  that  jubilee  of  apostolical  indulgences  began  to 
be  preached  and  went  on  to  such  an  extent  that  the  preachers  of  it,  think- 
ing that  everything  was  lawful  to  them  under  the  terror  of  your  name, 
dared  to  teach  openly  the  most  impious  and  heretical  things,  to  the  gravest 
scandal  and  derision  of  the  ecclesiastical  power,  as  if  the  decretals  against 
the  abuse  of  indulgences  were  of  no  concern  to  them.  He  was  greatly 
stirred.  " I  verily  burned, "  he  said,  "as  with  zeal  for  Christ,  as  it  seemed 
to  me,  or  if  any  prefer  it,  with  youthful  fire;  and  yet  I  did  not  see  that  it 
was  my  business  to  do  anything.  At  last  I  privately  appealed  to  some 
of  the  great  ones  of  the  Church.  I  was  received  by  some  in  one  way, 
by  some  in  another,  to  some  I  seemed  ridiculous,  to  some  something 
else;  the  terror  of  your  name,  the  threats  of  your  censures,  was  over- 
powering. "  When  no  one  else  would  do  anything,  and  when  he  could  do 
nothing  else,  he  proposed  a  disputation.  This  was  the  offense  that  he  had 
committed.  Contrary  to  his  expectations  his  theses  had  gone  out  into 
all  the  world.  Neither  his  own  nor  anyone  else's  had  ever  had  such  a 
circulation.  But  what  could  he  do?  He  could  not  recall  them;  and  they 
had  brought  him  into  a  dangerous  notoriety.  He  appealed  to  the  Pope 
for  countenance  and  protection.  He  assured  him  that  he  simply  could 
not  be  so  bad  as  he  had  been  represented,  otherwise  he  would  not  have 
the  friendship  of  the  Elector  and  other  good  men.  He  closes  by  saying: 
"Myself  and  all  I  have  and  am,  I  cast  at  your  feet.  Make  alive,  kill, 
call,  recall,  approve,  disapprove,  as  pleases  you.  I  will  recognize  your 
voice  as  the  voice  of  Christ  presiding  and  speaking  in  you.  If  I  have 
merited  death,  I  will  not  refuse  to  die,  for  the  earth  is  the  Lord's  and  the 
fulness  thereof,  who  is  blessed  forever,  Amen.  May  he  preserve  you 
eternally. " 

The  book  sent  with  this  letter  is  one  of  the  most  important  of  Luther's 
early  writings.  It  is  a  very  reasonable,  earnest  apology,  in  the  older 
sense  of  that  word.  It  occupies  about  one  hundred  and  fifty  pages  in 
his  printed  works.  Taking  up  the  theses  one  by  one,  sometimes  with  a 
few  sentences  of  comment,  sometimes  with  an  elaborate  argument,  it 


IN  CONFLICT  WITH  THE  POPE  61 

explains  and  defends  them.  On  the  whole  it  is  written  in  good  temper, 
only  now  and  then  breaking  into  a  strain  of  indignation.  It  is  introduced 
by  a  protestation  that  the  author  wishes  to  say  nothing  and  to  hold 
nothing  except  what  is  taught  in  the  Holy  Scriptures,  in  the  Fathers 
recognized  by  the  Roman  Church,  and  in  the  canons  and  papal  decretals. 
In  the  discussion  he  submits  to  the  judgment  of  his  superiors.  And  yet, 
in  defense  of  Christian  liberty,  he  claims  the  right  to  challenge  the 
opinions  of  Thomas  Aquinas,  Bonaventura,  or  any  other  scholastics  or 
canonists.  Large  use  has  already  been  made  of  this  book;  it  is  not 
necessary,  therefore,  to  do  more  now  than  say  that  it  gives  a  full  and 
satisfactory  view  of  what  Luther  taught  in  the  beginning  of  the  contro- 
versy, and,  incidentally,  also  what  his  opponents  taught.  It  shows,  too, 
that  they  were  not  far  wrong  in  taking  the  theses  as  something  more  than 
simple  questions  for  debate.  His  heart  was  hi  them. 

He  sent  his  Explanations  to  the  Pope  with  a  serious  purpose.1  He 
thought  they  might  have  some  effect,  and  that  somehow  he  would  be 
safer  by  having  them  as  an  advocate  at  the  Roman  court.  He  knew 
the  Pope  as  little  as  the  Pope  knew  him.  In  this  case,  and  once  hi  awhile 
through  life,  he  showed  great  simplicity  and  unconsciousness  of  the  ways 
of  the  world.  It  does  not  appear  that  Leo  X  took  his  Explanations  into 
serious  consideration,  either  in  a  meeting  of  the  Cardinals  or  in 
private  thought.  It  is  certain  that  matters  moved  on,  just  as  if  Luther 
had  made  no  effort  to  show  Leo  that  the  latter  was  nothing  like  so 
important  a  character  as  he  took  himself  to  be,  and  that  a  wise  and 
pious  Pope  could  not  possibly  do  what  at  that  very  moment  he  was 
vigorously  doing. 

Luther's  opponents  were  much  exasperated;  the  further  the  controversy 
progressed,  the  more  evident  it  became  that  it  would  be  difficult,  if  not 
impossible,  for  him  to  escape  a  conflict  with  the  Church  authorities. 
Already  he  was  called  a  heretic;  steps  had  been  taken  to  cite  him  to  Rome; 
excommunication  was  threatened.  At  ordinary  times  the  case  of  one 
man,  however  great,  might  be  of  little  significance.  But  men's  minds 
were  then  plastic,  ready  to  receive  new  impressions,  and  disposed  to 
inquire  into  the  reasons  of  things.  By  the  slow  working  of  mighty  but 
recognized  forces,  the  grasp  on  old  things  had  been  released;  old  con- 
ceptions had  been  weakened,  old  combinations  made  feeble  and  ready 
to  fall  to  pieces.  In  the  general  loosening  of  things,  there  was  an  oppor- 
tunity for  the  sweeping  away  of  what  had  become  hurtful  through  having 
got  a  wrong  meaning,  or  having  done  its  work  and  lingering  beyond  its 

1  Near  the  cloae  of  his  life  Luther  said  of  this  time:  "In  those  things  I  verily 
thought  that  I  would  have  the  Pope  as  my  patron;  I  was  strongly  relying  on  him." 
LOL,  1:  16. 


62  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

day.  There  was  also  opportunity  for  bringing  in  new  thought  and 
making  new  adjustments.  Luther,  more  than  any  other  man,  partly 
by  his  character  and  partly  by  his  circumstances,  was  prepared  to  take 
advantage  of  the  opportunity  offered.  He  was  so  situated  that  in  acting 
for  himself,  he  was  acting  for  his  tunes. 

He  was  threatened  with  excommunication.  How  ought  such  a  threat 
to  affect  him?  How  ought  it  to  affect  the  world?  What  is  excom- 
munication? This  was  a  pressing  question,  and  he  answered  it  for  him- 
self and  for  the  people  in  a  sermon  that  he  preached  in  Wittenberg  in 
July,  1518,  and  afterwards  published.  Excommunication,  he  said, 
is  simply  depriving  the  faithful  of  communion,  and  their  being  outside  it. 
Communion  itself  is  twofold,  first  inward  and  spiritual;  second,  external 
and  corporeal.  The  spiritual  communion  is  faith,  hope  and  charity. 
Only  God  can  give,  and  only  God  can  take  away,  the  internal  communion. 
Ecclesiastical  communion,  therefore,  has  reference  only  to  the  external 
sacraments.  To  be  excommunicated  is  not  to  be  handed  over  to  the 
devil;  it  does  not  deprive  one  of  the  goods,  or  of  the  common  prayers, 
of  the  Church.  If  it  is  just,  the  external  corresponds  with  the  internal 
and  spiritual,  but  does  not  itself  interrupt  the  spiritual  communion.  That 
only  the  man  can  do  by  his  sin.  Excommunication  was  not  intended  to 
destroy  internal  communion.  When  justly  inflicted,  its  natural  effect 
was  to  restore  that  communion,  when  unjustly  inflicted  to  increase  it. 
The  excommunication  of  the  Church  is  like  the  chastisement  of  a  mother, 
given  in  love  and  intended  for  good;  and  whether  just  or  unjust  is  to  be 
patiently  borne.  It  can  harm  only  when  it  excites  to  resentment  and 
rebellion.  One  unjustly  excommunicated  has  the  opportunity  given  him 
of  bearing  it  in  such  a  way  as  to  win  the  noblest  merit.  The  fear  of 
dying  in  excommunication  ought  not  to  deter  him  from  doing  right.  To 
die  in  excommunication  is  not  to  be  lost.  To  be  excommunicated  for 
righteousness'  sake  will  rather  bring  a  brighter  crown.1 

In  the  sermon  on  excommunication,  Luther  was  consciously  preparing 
himself  and  his  followers  for  what  might  be  before  him.  He  wrote  to 
Staupitz,  September,  1518,  that  he  had  preached  it,  and  that  it  was 
very  much  needed  by  the  people — vehementer  necessarium  populo.  If 
he  could  not  avoid  excommunication,  he  could  easily  endure  it.  He  need 
not  fear  for  himself;  his  friends  need  not  fear  for  him.  What  had  been 
one  of  the  most  terrible  instruments  of  papal  repression  had  lost  its  ter- 
rors. It  was  a  lion  in  the  way,  but  a  chained  lion. 

In  this  same  way  Luther  prepared  himself  to  meet  the  charge  of  heresy 
that  was  now  brought  against  him.  For  hundreds  of  years  the  Church 
had  taught  and  men  had  believed  that  heresy  was  the  greatest  of  crimes. 

,  2:  306  seq. 


IN  CONFLICT  WITH  THE  POPE  63 

A  heretic  was  to  the  Church  what  a  leper  was  to  the  old  Law,  and  more: 
he  was  not  worthy  to  live.  But  what  was  a  heretic?  The  name  had 
been  much  abused.  Luther  had  many  occasions  to  feel  this  and  to  inquire 
within  himself  what  it  was  to  be  a  heretic.  Shrinking  from  and  hating 
the  name,1  how  far  could  he  go  in  opposing  current  beliefs  without  deserv- 
ing it?  Two  things  were  necessary  for  him  and  his  cause:  first,  there 
must  be  occasion  for  making  clear  his  thoughts  of  heresy  to  himself, 
and  second  of  teaching  them  with  emphasis  to  others.  The  occasion  was 
furnished  for  the  first  by  every  attack  made  on  him,  and  for  both  by  his 
controversy  with  Hoogstraten. 

Hoogstraten,  in  a  published  work,  had  advised  the  Pope  to  use  fire 
and  sword  against  Luther,  and  so  rid  the  world  of  one  of  the  worst  of 
men.  This  was  said  by  an  inquisitor  of  heresy;  and  it  was  as  a  heretic 
that  Luther  was  to  be  burned.  In  his  reply,  he  did  not  attempt  to  define 
heresy;  it  does  not  admit  of  an  exact  definition.  The  case  of  Hoog- 
straten was  not  a  case  for  argument;  he  had  not  himself  reasoned  or  ar- 
gued. The  fool  must  be  answered  according  to  his  folly;  he  must  be  made 
ridiculous.  It  so  happened  that  this  was  not  difficult  to  do.  Hoogstra- 
ten had  a  record;  he  had  been  engaged  in  a  controversy  with  the  celebrated 
Hebrew  scholar,*  Reuchlin,  in  which  he  had  taken  the  side  of  prescription 
against  learning.  The  wits  had  laughed  at  him;  the  scholars  felt  con- 
tempt for  him.  Luther  made  short  work  of  him.  "Here,"  said  he, 
"is  Hoogstraten's  argument:  This  is  contrary  to  Scripture;  therefore 
it  is  heretical.  Very  good;  David's  adultery  was  contrary  to  Scripture, 
nay,  it  was  contrary  to  the  Decalogue.  Therefore,  it  was  heresy.  There 
is  no  sin,  however  slight,  that  is  not  contrary  to  Scripture;  therefore,  the 
whole  world  is  nothing  but  pure  heresy.  The  Church  itself  is  not  with- 
out sin,  is  heretical.  We  are  all  heretics — except  only  Hoogstraten, 
who  is  not  as  other  men  are! " 

When  we  have  made  a  man  seem  contemptible,  we  may  easily  speak 
contemptuously  of  him.  Luther  continues:  "Who  is  a  heretic  if  not 
you,  who,  according  to  your  logic,  hold  premises  from  which  the  most 
heretical  conclusion  follows,  that  the  whole  Church  is  heretical?  There- 
fore, I  say  I  never  saw  a  more  pestilent  heretic  than  Jacob  Hoogstraten. 
Arise,  then,  0  Leo  X,  most  gentle  shepherd,  and  send  other  hunters  of 
heretics  to  look  after  this  hunter  of  heretics !  "2  Hoogstraten  was  defeated ; 
but  more,  and  far  more  important,  Luther  and  his  friends  were  put  in  a 
position  in  which  they  might  laugh  at  and  despise  a  charge  of  heresy. 

No  one  who  understands  anything  of  the  power  of  custom  or  of  long 
reigning  conceptions  will  think  that  time  has  been  wasted  in  indicating 

1  Haereticus  nunquam  ero,  errare  disputando  possum,  he  wrote  to  Spalatin  August 
21,  1518.  De  Wette,  1:  133. 

2LOL,  2:  295-297. 


64  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

the  process  by  which  Luther  was  freeing  himself  and  the  people  from  the 
domination  of  the  slow  developments  of  the  past.  He  was  clearing  the 
way,  removing  obstacles  which  remaining  he  could  not  advance.  No 
man  is  so  likely  to  find  the  truth  as  he  who  needs  it,  and  Luther  never 
thought  so  well  about  heresy  and  excommunication  as  when  he  was 
called  a  heretic  and  threatened  with  the  censures  of  the  Church.  In 
after  years,  as  the  responsible  leader  of  a  great  party,  he  saw  some  things 
obscurely  or  not  at  all,  which  he  saw  clearly  when  he  was  making  his 
way  in  opposition  to  authority  and  power.  He  rightly  urged  patience 
under  unjust  excommunication;  we  shall  see  how  patient  he  was  when  he 
was  excommunicated !  He  thought  there  ought  to  be  freedom  in  reference 
to  things  not  authoritatively  defined;  nevertheless  the  charge  of  heresy 
might  be  lightly  made,  even  by  Lutherans,  after  awhile.  So  much  de- 
pends on  the  point  of  view! 

In  the  history  of  great  movements,  it  oftens  happens  that  some  par- 
ticular time  is  marked  by  the  conjunction  of  many  things  of  importance. 
Sometimes  it  is  a  day,  sometimes  a  month  or  year,  that  is  so  marked. 
Men  seem  to  be  under  a  lucky  or  unlucky  star.  In  the  early  time  Luther 
had  a  fateful  month:  it  was  August,  1518.  Not  the  first  thing,  but  cer- 
tainly not  the  least  important  thing,  of  that  month  was  the  coming 
of  Philip  Melanchthon.1  He  was  born  at  Bretten,  in  Baden,  February 
16,  1497.  His  original  name  was  Schwartzerd;  it  was  turned  into  Greek 
by  Reuchlin.  His  father,  George  Schwartzerd,  was  an  armorer,  a  skillful 
and  honored  mechanic,  who  died  when  Philip  was  eleven  years  old.  His 
mother,  Barbara  Reuter,  was  of  good  family  and  excellent  character, 
besides  being  a  woman  of  unusual  sense.2  On  the  father's  side  he  was 
related  to  Reuchlin,  and  lived  for  a  time  in  the  house  of  Reuchlin's  sister, 
his  grandmother,  and  thus  came  under  the  notice  and  won  the  esteem  of 
the  great  scholar.  This  was  at  Pforzheim,  where  he  spent  two  years  (1507- 
1509)  in  the  Latin  school.  He  went  thence  to  the  university  of  Heidel- 
berg, and  in  1511  took  his  Bachelor's  degree.  His  Master's  degree  was 
refused  him  the  next  year,  on  account  of  his  youth.  It  was  given  him 
at  Tubingen,  where  he  was  an  enthusiastic  student,  in  1514.  In  April, 
1518,  the  Elector  Frederick  wrote  to  Reuchlin  asking  him  to  recommend 
some  one  to  teach  Greek  in  the  university  of  Wittenberg.  Reuchlin 

1  The  name  is  variously  spelled:  Melanchthon  (which  agrees  best  with  the  Greek) , 
Melancthon,  and  Melanthon — the  last  being  the  form  adopted  by  himself  in  his 
later  years. 

*  Melanchthon's  mother  is  said  to  have  been  the  author  of  the  popular  lines: 
Almsgiving  beggareth  not; 
Church-going  hindereth  not; 
To  grace  the  ear  delayeth  not; 
Gain  ill-gotten  helpeth  not; 
God's  book  deceiveth  not. 


IN  CONFLICT  WITH  THE  POPE  65 

recommended  Melanchthon.  The  24th  of  July  of  that  year  he  wrote 
to  Melanchthon:  "Here  is  a  letter  from  the  most  pious  prince,  signed 
by  his  own  hand,  in  which  he  offers  you  the  place  and  promises  to  be 
gracious  to  you.  Wherefore  now  I  address  you  sincerely  in  the  language 
of  the  true  promise  made  to  Abraham,  'Get  thee  out  of  thy  country, 
and  from  thy  kindred,  and  from  thy  father's  house,  unto  a  land  that  I 
will  show  thee;  and  I  will  make  thee  a  great  nation,  and  I  will  bless  thee 
and  make  thy  name  great,  and  thou  shalt  be  a  blessing.'  So  my  mind 
presages,  so  I  hope,  Philip,  that  thou  wilt  be  my  reward  and  solace."1 
Almost  immediately  Melanchthon  set  out  for  Wittenberg,  leaving  Tubin- 
gen with  the  regrets  and  good  will  of  all.  On  the  way  he  stopped  at 
Augsburg,  where  the  Diet  was  in  session,  and  paid  his  respects  to  the 
Elector  and  to  Spalatin.  He  met  with  Bavarians  too,  who  wished  him 
to  go  to  Ingolstadt  rather  than  to  Wittenberg.  At  Niirnberg  he  made 
the  acquaintance  of  Pirckheimer,  the  noted  Humanist.  At  Leipzig  he 
was  feted  and  toasted,  and  an  effort  was  made  to  detain  him  for  the  uni- 
versity there.  August  25th,  early  in  the  morning,  he  entered  Witten- 
berg. He  was  so  young,  so  unimpressive  in  appearance,  that  the  Witten- 
berg professors  thought  there  was  some  mistake,  and  that  Reuchlin 
could  not  have  recommended  such  a  mere  boy  to  the  Elector.  On  the 
29th  he  delivered  his  first  lecture.  Two  days  afterwards  Luther  wrote  to 
Spalatin:  "The  fourth  day  after  his  coming  Melanchthon  delivered  a 
most  learned  and  elegant  lecture,  so  much  to  the  delight  and  admira- 
tion of  all,  that  we  now  no  longer  wonder  why  you  commend  him  to  us. 
We  have  already  ceased  to  think  of  the  weakness  of  his  outward  appear- 
ance, and  rejoice  in  and  admire  the  force  that  is  in  him.  If  we  can  keep 
him,  I  wish  no  other  teacher  of  Greek."2  He  already  began  to  fear 
that  the  diet  at  Wittenberg  would  not  agree  with  the  young  Grecian, 
and  that  some  other  university  would  tempt  him  away  with  a  larger 
salary.  The  2d  of  September  Melanchthon's  lecture  room  was  crowded, 
and  all  classes  from  highest  to  lowest  were  touched  with  enthusiasm  for 
Greek.  The  14th  of  December  Luther  wrote  to  Reuchlin:  "Our  Philip 
Melanchthon  is  an  admirable  man;  yea,  there  is  hardly  any  respect  in 
which  he  does  not  surpass  other  men;  nevertheless  he  is  on  the  best  and 
most  friendly  terms  with  me."3  Melanchthon  was  twenty-one  years 
old;  Luther  was  already  famous  and  fourteen  years  older.  They  had 
been  together  only  a  hundred  days,  and  there  had  begun  between  them 
such  a  friendship  as  is  rarely  known  among  men. 

It  was  on  the  7th  of  August  that  Luther  received  notice  of  his  summons 
to  Rome.    He  had  been  trusting  that  his  letter  to  the  Pope  might  ward 

^R,  1:  32. 
•De  Wette,  1:  135. 
i    *De  Wette,  1:  197. 


66  THE  REFORMATION  EN"  GERMANY 

off  the  threatened  blow.  He  was  disappointed:  the  Pope  was  about  to 
caQ  him  to  account.  Before  the  7th  he  had  been  much  in  the  thoughts 
rsons  in  the  highest  position.  Two  letters  were  written  about 
day,  the  6th  of  August.  One  was  by  the  Emperor  Mari- 
the  other  by  the  Hector  of  Saxony.  The  Emperor's  letter  was 
to  the  Pope.  He  had  heard,  he  said,  a  few  days  before,  of  Luther's 

the  Sacred  Palace,  Prierias,  had  abo  called  his  attention  to  them.    They 


gained  many  friends  even  among 

best  qualified  to  judge  what  doctrine  was  injurious,  and  it  was  his 
duty  to  sflenee  those  who  wordily  contended  about  idle  and 
tical  questions.     He  fywnpbMnpH  tJHEt^   in  defiance  of  an  old 
law,  the  religious  doctors  gave  themadv^a  up  to  scholastic  reasonings 

t    *•'•,  -         __  i  ___       ^f  jLl_^    -JJ       _  —1,  _    ____  "a      *»          •»    M    ._    •»  _&  AIL  _    *^n  _____  "•  O_—  JL 

to  toe  neglect  at  toe  010,  accnowiedgea  teacnezs  of  toe  L»nurcn.  oucn 
a  cuurae  led  naturally  to  tins  present  condition  of  things,  and  unless  some- 
thing  was  done  to  prevent  it,  maUm  would  grow  worse.  He  mentioned 
to  the  Pope  that  he  might  take  steps  to  prevent  scandal  to 
by  nan,  captions,  disputatious  men.  He  himself  would  take 
(  tint  whatever  tie  Pope  should  decree  should  be  done  in  the  Empire. 
The  letter  interprets  itself.  He  who  wrote  it  was  now  old  and  drawing 
to  the  dose  of  his  long  reign.1 

The  Elector's  letter  was  to  the  Cardinal  Raphael  Rovere.  It  was  in 
answer  to  one  that  the  Cardinal  had  written  him  several  months  before, 
about  Lather,  to  whom  he  suspected  the  Hector  of  being  too  favorable. 
Frederick  assures  the  Cardinal  of  his  unalterable  derotkm  to  the  Cathofic 
He  had  never,  even  to  that  day,  undertaken  to  defend  Lather's 
as  he  had  already  shown  the  papal  legate,  both  by 
But,  as  he  learns,  Dr.  Martin  had  never  refused, 
if  his  safety  were  guaranteed,  to  appear  before  just,  wise  and  impartial 
judges  and  defend  his  doctrine;  and  if  he  should  be  taught  better  out  of 
the  Holy  SeiipUmia,  he  would  obediently  submit.  Besides,  the  Arch- 
bishop of  Trier  had  already  been  spoken  to  about  him,  and  Lather,  no 
doubt,  if  his  safety  were  sufficiently  assured,  would  obediently  answer 
the  Archbishop's  summons.  It  would  grieve  the  Hector  from  his  soul, 
if  errors  in  the  Catholic  faith  should  spring  up  and  exist  in  Ms  day,  and 
especially  if  they  should  be  promoted  by  him.  Fcuui  which  impfety, 
said  he,  may  God  pnamc  me  pure.2 

These  letters  enable  us  to  understand  the  attitude  of  their  writers 


1  IXH*.  2:  349  109. 

*  LOL,  2:  351.  352.    B 

ftJUw  Joiy  7,  and  was 


'«  tetter  wm  wnttai  «t  Borne  April  3. 
from  Axtgftnrg,  A  •girt.  5. 


IN  CONFLICT  WITH  THE  POPE  67 

A         1      At—. *      Al.,—  *I^.   _       T^ — ^     •-»"-- I 1      jLt.— .       --- 

toward  toe  movement  tnai  gomg  on.  i  DC  rjnperor  attnoutea  toe  nse 
of  the  error  to  the  unfaithfulness  of  the  Church  IM*!***^  and  eBpedafty 
to  the  indulgoice  in  dialectic  quibbfes.  He  implied  that  the  Pope  himself 
was  not  free  Itvtu  blame,  in  thai  he  had  neglected  the  enforcement  of 

1  .  ~1    1. ,_.  ~1    ..   *J. * M    l^*«    _  *  -  *  u    *.-» *    •• ...  •!  •  i.          j.   ^_ •• M^    •• 

lair,  ana  naa  not  ezerasea  ms  ngnt  to  tA£v£4ii  nonicaft  ana  even  nuruul 
The  Elector  was  peeufiarry  situated.  He  knew  Lather, 
his  gHning  and  force  of  character,  and  befaered  in 
honesty  and  piety.  It  is  hard  to  feel  that  a 
mire  is  a  heretic.  Besides,  the  Elector  was  proud  of 
Lother  was  hi?  mn^  frtiliiaM1  professor.  He 

AM^BT  frnm  atitfr  EmpeTOT  Of  Elector. 

There  were  two  other  notewwthy  letters  written  in  Angoet,  1518,  both 
on  the  23d  of  the  month  and  both  by  the  Pope.    Onewastothe 
The  Pope  began  by  Mirindmg  him  of  h 


to  the  papal  see,  and  suggested  that  he  ought  to  keep  op  the  family 
reputation,     That  reputation  was  in  danger:  a  cetlaut  son  of  iniquity. 


and  that  he  therefore  feared  no  reproof  .  The  Pope  knew  that  this  was 
frbe,  and  yet  he  thought  ft  proper  to  wain  the  Elector.  He  should  not 
only  be  free  from  gaflt^  bat  free  also  from  auapir  JOIL.  The  was  said  by 
way  of  lol-T^fflur^^*1  He  went  on  to  say  that  he  had  heaid  from  many 

Palace,"  that  the  avid  Martin  Lather  was 

ing  certain  impious  and  heretical  things,  awl  that  te  had  therefore  ordered 

him  to  be  cited  to  answer,  and  had 

his  legate,  to  do  what  he  ou^it  to  do.    And  as  it 

the  Apostofic  See  to  know  who  thinks  rightly  and  wrongjty,  he 

and  «nmm«nd«i  the  Elector,  "for  God's  honor,  and  the  Pope's 

and  the  Elector's  honor,  to  seek  and  bring  it  about  that  the  said  Martin 

Luther  be  defivered  up  to  the  power  and  judgment  of  the  Holy  See, 

At        _  f  _____  g  J  ¥  ___  A_    _^_  „  ..  1  J  __          *    _     Tn        WT,—   _____  ?  ___  a  .•_••_  _  ji   "•»  A»  __  "aoai  __  a  __ 

as  the  aluresan  legate  snomoi  require.  ne  pronmea  tnat  it  toe  Juector 
ihougjht  there  was  good  in  Luther,  after  tnat  net  *****  been  ascertained 
and  he  had  been  found  innocent,  he  would  be  sent  back  with  afl  good 


SU:L  .1  .:~.~:r    -T"."  : :.  ~. :  :•.  "-: .:•.'.  "  r.:_ : -    i  .:".;. 
by  the  whole  of  Europe,  of  sincere  piety  and  Tcnerable  for  age  as  well 
as  character,  was  properly  courteous,  but  one  can  hardly  see  in  it,  with 

lack  plainness.    The  other  letter  was  to  Gwfinal  Cretan,  the  papal 
representative  m  Germany.    It  was  an  official  document,  to  the  Pope's 

j^  -    „    _z:  .      _.Al_.         1 1  in,    ill    M.  Ti-  -_«^.  tttm    -  -   *  -       CM., 

-- . .^utiy  s^iMioaTn     it was  tne  oraer  rar 


68  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

arrest.  It  began  by  reciting  his  offense:  He  had  dared  to  teach  things 
contrary  to  what  was  held  by  the  Roman  Church,  and  also,  in  his  rash- 
ness, without  having  consulted  that  Church,  the  mistress  of  faith,  to 
publish  in  various  parts  of  Germany  certain  Theses  and  also  infamous 
little  books.  Wishing  paternally  to  restrain  his  rashness,  the  Pope  had 
commissioned  Jerome,  Episcopus  Asculanus,  to  inquire  into  his  belief 
and  admonish  him.  This  had  been  done  (the  7th  of  August)  and  Luther 
had  abused  the  papal  kindness  and  published  more  books  containing 
more  heresy,  thereby  disturbing  the  Pope's  mind  no  little.  He  would 
forbear  no  longer,  but  lest  the  disease  should  grow  worse,  he  commanded 
the  legate  to  have  Luther  brought  before  him  as  a  declared  heretic; 
and  when  he  had  him  in  his  power  he  was  to  keep  him  safe  until  he  should 
receive  the  Pope's  command  for  him  to  stand  in  the  presence  of  the  Apos- 
tolic See.  This  was  to  be  done  with  the  aid  of  the  Emperor,  the  courts, 
the  universities,  and  so  on  to  the  end  of  the  list.  If  Luther  should 
voluntarily  deliver  himself  up,  ask  pardon,  and  show  signs  of  repentance, 
the  Cardinal  might  benignly  receive  him  to  the  unity  of  the  holy  mother 
Church,  which  never  closes  her  heart  against  the  returning  penitent. 
But  if  he  should  remain  perverse,  and  should  not  surrender  himself,  he 
and  his  followers  were  to  be  publicly  declared  heretics,  anathematized, 
and  Christians  were  to  be  required  to  avoid  them  under  penalty  of  ex- 
communication. All  persons,  secular  and  ecclesiastical,  of  every  order 
(the  Emperor  Maximilian  excepted)  were  required  to  take  the  said  Martin 
Luther  and  his  followers  and  deliver  them  into  the  Cardinal's  hands. 
If  the  princes  or  others  should  favor  Luther,  publicly  or  privately,  or  in 
any  way  receive  him  or  give  him  aid,  their  cities,  towns,  lands  were  to 
be  placed  under  interdict  as  long  as  he  remained  in  them,  and  three  days 
afterwards.  Besides,  there  was  to  be  exclusion  from  office  and  other  civil 
and  political  disabilities,  and  refusal  of  Christian  burial  to  those  who 
should  be  disobedient;  rewards  and  favors  to  those  who  should  assist 
in  carrying  out  the  Pope's  will.1 

Affairs  in  Germany,  and  particularly  the  above-summarized  letters  of 
the  Emperor  and  Elector,  probably  stimulated  the  Pope  to  take  such 
vigorous  measures  with  Luther.  The  fire  so  recently  kindled  was  already 
spreading  with  alarming  rapidity.  The  meeting  of  the  Diet  at  which 
Cajetan  was  present,  the  conference  between  the  Emperor  and  the  Elector 
of  Saxony  (which  resulted  in  both  writing  the  same  day)  the  discussions 
of  public  matters  among  the  princes,  had  helped  to  disclose  the  situation. 

t  l  LOL,  2:  354.  Though  this  letter,  of  which  nothing  is  known  beyond  its  pub- 
lication by  Luther  in  his  Acta  Augustana,  is  accepted  by  Pallavicini  as  genuine 
(in  his  "History  of  the  Council  of  Trent").  Ranke  has  shown  that  there  are  in- 
superable difficulties  in  the  way  of  accepting  its  genuineness.  Kolde,  however,  de- 
fends the  authenticity  of  the  letter. 


IN  CONFLICT  WITH  THE  POPE  69 

The  principal  business  of  the  Diet  was  to  confer  about  a  Turkish  war; 
but  it  was  felt  that  the  relations  of  the  Pope  to  Germany  also  required 
consideration.  It  was  even  suggested  that  the  Turk  was  to  be  looked  for 
in  Italy,  rather  than  in  Hungary  or  the  East.  The  Germans  were 
moved  to  think  of  and  formulate  their  grievances  against  the  papal 
court.  There  was  a  double  revelation  of  disaffection  and  hostility  towards 
Rome  and  of  possible  sympathy  and  favor  for  Luther.  The  declared 
heretic  was  also  getting  a  better  understanding  of  things.  It  began  to  be 
suggested  to  him  that  he  was  not  so  entirely  alone  as  he  had  thought 
himself  to  be. 

Of  course  the  Pope's  letters  of  August  23d  were  not  seen  hi  Witten- 
berg in  that  month.  It  was  some  time  before  the  letter  to  Cajetan  was 
known  to  Luther  and  his  friends.  But  the  admonition  of  the  7th  caused 
much  anxiety.  The  anxiety  was  probably  increased  by  the  apparently 
inopportune  publication  of  the  reply  to  Prierias,  and  the  Explanations 
of  the  Theses  a  few  days  after  the  coming  of  the  summons.  That  publi- 
cation was  certain  to  be  construed  as  an  additional  offense.  The  Pope 
would  not  stop  to  think  that  the  printing  must  have  been  ordered  long 
before,  and  he  would  suspect  Luther  of  contempt  and  defiance.  This 
is  what  Luther's  friends  would  fear;  and  it  is  what  the  Pope  actually  did.1 

The  crowding  together  of  so  many  things  in  one  month  indicated  the 
coming  of  a  crisis.  The  battle  was  ordering  itself.  The  coming  of 
Melanchthon,  the  letter  of  the  Emperor,  the  letter  of  the  Elector,  the 
summons  to  Rome,  the  Diet  at  Augsburg,  the  conference  between  Emperor 
and  Elector,  the  presence  of  the  papal  legate,  the  Pope's  two  letters,  the 
publication  of  Luther's  important  little  books,  all  contributed  to  the 
general  effect.  Luther  himself,  and  his  friends  with  him,  felt  that  he 
was  being  pressed  to  the  wall.  Staupitz  wrote  him  on  September  14th: 
"I  do  not  see  that  anything  except  the  cross  awaits  you.  Unless  I 
am  mistaken,  there  is  a  notion  abroad  that  without  the  Pope's  permis- 
sion, no  one  should  search  the  Scripture  to  find  out  what  Christ  would 
have  him  do.  I  wish  that  you  would  leave  Wittenberg  for  a  time  and 
come  to  me,  that  we  may  live  and  die  together."2  This  was  written 
from  Salzburg,  whither  Staupitz  had  gone  to  be  head  of  a  monastery. 
On  August  8th,  the  next  day  after  receiving  the  summons,  Luther  wrote 
to  the  Elector,  asking  his  intercession  and  help. 

The  university  acted  later  (September  25th)  writing  two  letters  in 
his  behalf,  one  to  Miltitz,  the  papal  nuncio,  the  other  to  the  Pope  him- 

1  It  was  probably  these  books  that  the  Pope  alluded  to  in  his  letter  of  the  23d, 
when  he  said,  "It  has  recently  come  to  our  knowledge,  moreover,  that  the  said 
Martin,  having  abused  and  been  emboldened  by  our  kindness,  adding  to  his 
offenses  and  persisting  in  his  heresy,  has  published  certain  other  propositions,"  etc. 

'Walch,  15:  2412. 


70  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

self.  The  one  to  Miltitz  was  to  beg  that  he,  a  German,  would  intercede 
for  a  German  in  distress.  The  Pope  had  spoken  of  Luther  as  a  son  of 
perdition;  his  neighbors,  those  who  knew  him  best,  thought  very  differ- 
ently of  him.  They  called  him  the  most  distinguished  member  of  the 
university.  They  had  known  him  many  years,  and  had  found  him  to  be 
not  only  a  man  of  varied  and  distinguished  learning,  but  also  of  the  purest 
morals.  As  he  appeared  to  the  university,  so  he  appeared  to  the  Elector; 
neither  he  nor  they  would  harbor  or  protect  a  heretic.1  What  they  asked 
was  that  Miltitz  would  bring  it  about  that  his  cause  might  be  committed 
to  impartial  judges  in  Germany,  and  heard  in  some  safe  place.  They 
did  not  doubt  that  Miltitz,  whose  power  and  influence  were  great  at 
Rome,  would  be  able  to  obtain  for  them  what  they  asked. 

The  letter  to  the  Pope  was  somewhat  shorter.  It  was  written  at 
Luther's  request;  he  wished  them  to  testify  as  to  his  doctrine  and  reputa- 
tion, which,  as  he  claimed,  certain  persons  had  unjustly  defamed.  The 
letter  urged  his  bodily  weakness  and  the  dangers  of  the  way  as  a  reason 
why  he  should  not  be  required  to  go  to  Rome.2  His  principal  offense 
was  that  he  had  somewhat  too  freely  used  the  right  of  disputation,  and 
had  disputed  (not  asserted)  certain  things  too  vigorously  for  his  ad- 
versaries. Both  letters  are  abundantly  submissive  and  respectful  to 
the  Pope.3  They  were  written  too  late,  however,  to  have  any  influence 
on  the  Pope's  conduct.  The  Elector  had  already  acted  in  the  case,  and 
it  had  beep  decided.  The  Pope  himself  no  doubt  saw  that  Luther's 
arrest  and  delivery  at  Rome  might  be  attended  with  difficulties.  There 
were  reasons  why  he  should  be  willing  to  gratify  the  wishes  of  the  Elector 
of  Saxony,  whose  help  he  might  need  at  no  distant  day.  Possibly  he 
was  not  yet  certain  that  extreme  measures  would  be  necessary.  At  all 
events,  he  found  it  convenient,  in  a  modified  way  at  least,  to  suspend  the 
order  for  Luther's  arrest.  Instead,  he  was  to  be  heard  in  Germany  by 
Cajetan.  His  friends  would  have  preferred  a  German  judge,  but  it  was 
something  that  he  was  not  compelled  to  go  to  Rome. 

The  meeting  with  Cajetan  was  highly  important.  The  case  was 
developing,  but  it  had  not  yet  fully  developed.  Luther  was  still  a  loyal 
son  of  the  Church.  He  could  say,  "I  protest  that  I  reverence  and  follow 

1  So  favorably  are  we  disposed  to  the  Christian  religion,  the  holy  apostolic 
see  and  the  Holy  Roman  Church,  that,  if  it  was  clear  to  us  that  Doctor  Martin 
had  lapsed  into  foul  and  impious  errors,  we  ourselves  would  be  the  first  not  only 
to  give  him  up  to  the  laws,  but  ourselves  to  execute  them  and  to  cast  him  out — 
so  far  are  we  from  wishing  to  favor  anyone  who  errs  from  the  way  of  evangelical 
truth.— Letter  to  Miltitz,  LOL,  2:  361. 

2  The  plea  of  bodily  weakness  is  not  so  unreasonable  when  we  remember  that 
Luther  had  traveled  on  foot  to  Rome  in  1510;   and  that  he  now  thought  of  going 
in  no  other  way.     He  broke  down  on  the  shorter  journey  to  Augsburg. 

3  They  say  to  the  Pope:  "We  are  prepared  in  all  things  to  obey  your  will  and  that 
of  the  Holy  Catholic  Church  in  Christ  Jesus  our  Lord  God."    They  sign  themselves 
the  "Rector,  Masters  and  Doctors  of  the  Wittenberg  Academy."   LOL,  2:  363,  364. 


IN  CONFLICT  WITH  THE  POPE  VI 

the  Holy  Roman  Church  in  all  my  words  and  deeds,  whether  present, 
past  or  future.  And  if  I  have  said,  or  shall  hereafter  say,  anything  con- 
trary to  or  different  from  that  Church,  I  wish  to  hold  it  and  to  have  it 
held  not  said."  This  he  actually  did  say  to  Cajetan.  The  question 
about  the  Pope  had,  indeed,  been  raised,  but  he  cared  little  for  it.  His 
chief  interest  was  still  in  the  question  as  to  the  nature  and  office  of  faith. 
If  he  "could  have  been  tolerated  in  his  views  of  faith,  if  the  issue  could 
have  been  kept  from  changing  or  widening,  all  might  have  been  healed. 
The  meeting  with  the  papal  legate  might  close  or  widen  the  breach.  It 
took  place  at  Augsburg,  a  city  famous  in  the  history  of  the  Reformation. 
Luther  traveled  on  foot.  On  September  28th  he  reached  Weimar, 
where  he  met  the  Elector  and  preached.  At  Niirnberg  he  met  his  friend 
Wencel  Link,  from  whom  he  borrowed  a  monk's  frock,  in  which  to  appear 
before  the  Cardinal.  Thence  he  went  accompanied  by  Link  and  a  former 
pupil.  When  within  about  fifteen  miles  of  Augsburg  he  was  taken  sick 
and  had  to  travel  the  rest  of  the  way  in  a  wagon.1  All  his  circumstances 
were  in  striking  contrast  with  the  importance  of  his  mission.  In  great 
moral  and  religious  struggles,  how  little  really  depends  on  the 
accidents  of  a  man!  How  greatly  a  great  man  towers  above  his 
accidents! 

Luther  reached  Augsburg  October  7th,  and  went  at  once  to  the  Augus- 
tinian  convent.  There  the  friends  to  whom  the  Elector  had  given  him 
letters  promptly  called  on  him.  He  had  come  trusting  hi  the  assurances 
of  safety  that  Cajetan  had  given  the  Elector,  and  that  the  Elector  had 
given  him.  He  expected  to  appear  without  delay  before  the  Cardinal, 
and  so  informed  the  messenger  of  that  official.  His  friends,  more  prudent, 
warned  him  not  to  put  himself  in  the  legate's  power  without  the  pro- 
tection of  a  safe-conduct  from  the  Emperor.  The  messenger  insisted 
that  such  a  safe-conduct  was  unnecessary,  and  the  Cardinal  regarded 
the  suspicion  that  it  might  be  needed  as  a  reflection  on  his  honor;  but, 
on  the  whole,  Luther  concluded  to  follow  the  advice  of  his  friends  and 
accordingly  he  waited  for  the  safe-conduct.  In  the  meantime  he  re- 
moved to  the  convent  of  the  Carmelites,  at  the  invitation  of  John  Trosch, 
the  prior,  an  old  friend.  Here  he  had  two  or  three  days  in  which  to  rest 
and  think  of  what  was  before  him.  He  had  reached  the  city  Friday; 
he  was  on  the  streets  Sunday  and  many  were  curious  to  see  and  hear  him. 
He  says,  "All  wished  to  see  the  Herostratus  who  had  kindled  so  great 
a  fire. "  This  he  said  in  a  letter  to  Melanchthon,  whom  he  exhorted  to 

1  In  recalling  his  journey  to  Augsburg,  in  1545,  he  wrote:  "  Veni  igitur  pedester 
et  pauper  Augustam,  stipatus  sumptibus  et  literis  Principis  Frederici  ad  senatum 
et  quosdam  bonos  viros  comendatitiis.  Pref .  to  LOL,  1 :  17.  Among  the  good  men 
to  whom  Luther  was  commended  were  the  imperial  Councillor  Peutinger,  Lange- 
mantel,  the  brothers  Adelman  and  others.  Staupitz  was  also  in  Augsburg. 


72  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

continue  to  teach  the  young  men  as  he  had  been  doing.  For  himself, 
he  said,  he  would  rather  perish,  and  what  was  more,  give  up  his  delightful 
fellowship  with  Melanchthon  forever,  than  revoke  what  he  had  well  said. 
He  thought  Italy  full  of  palpable  darkness;  that  the  Italians  were  ignorant 
of  Christ  and  Christ's  doctrines;  and  it  was  bitter  to  him  that  they 
should  be  the  lords  of  his  faith.  God  in  wrath,  he  said,  had  given  them 
children  for  rulers.1  It  had  not  yet  been  sixty  days  since  the  young 
Melanchthon  began  to  teach  in  Wittenberg,  and  in  a  strange  city,  sur- 
rounded by  watchful  enemies,  Luther  turned  to  him. 

The  safe-conduct  reached  Luther  October  10th,  and  the  next  day, 
Tuesday,  he  appeared  before  Cajetan.  As  he  had  never  before  had  au- 
dience of  a  great  papal  official,  it  was  needful  to  instruct  him  how  to 
conduct  himself.  Following  his  instructions,  he  prostrated  himself, 
then  on  being  commanded  to  rise,  he  remained  on  his  knees  until  a  second 
order,  when  he  stood  up.  The  Cardinal  received  him  graciously  and 
respectfully.2  He  did  not,  he  said,  wish  to  dispute  with  Luther,  but  in  a 
kind  and  fatherly  way  to  settle  the  whole  matter.  In  order  to  this  he 
proposed,  according  to  the  instructions  of  the  Pope,  that  Luther  should 
do  three  things:  first,  return  to  himself  and  revoke  his  errors;  second, 
promise  to  abstain  from  them  hi  the  future;  and  third,  to  do  nothing 
thereafter  to  disturb  the  peace  of  the  Church.  Luther  in  reply  begged 
to  be  taught  wherein  he  had  erred.  This  seemed  so  reasonable  that 
the  Cardinal,  who  did  not  wish  to  dispute,  came  near  being  betrayed  into 
disputing.  He  mentioned  two  things  in  Luther's  teachings  that  were 
objectionable.  The  first  was  thesis  58:  That  the  merits  of  Christ  are 
not  the  Treasure  of  indulgences.  This  was  in  conflict  with  the  Extrava- 
gans  of  Clement  VI,  the  Unigenitus,  etc.  The  second  objectionable  thing 
was  that  he  who  approaches  the  sacraments  or  enters  into  judgment 
must  have  faith.  This,  the  Cardinal  thought,  was  a  new  and  erroneous 
doctrine,  inasmuch  as  every  man  would  be  uncertain  whether  in  the 
sacraments  he  would  receive  grace  or  not.  He  seems  to  have  thought  that 
Luther  was  ignorant  of  the  Extravagans  of  Clement,  and  that  an  authority 
that  satisfied  him  would  also  satisfy  Luther  But  Luther  replied  that 
he  was  acquainted  with  the  law  referred  to,  and  others  of  a  similar  charac- 

lrThe  letter  to  Melanchthon  is  short,  LOL,  2:  364;  De  Wette,  1:145.  It  is 
dated  Angustae  feria  secunda  post  Dionysii  anno  M.  D.  xmii.  Roscoe  ("Life  of 
Leo  X,"  Bonn  ed.)  says  queerly  that  this  letter  was  written  "on  the  eve  of  Luther's 
departure  on  this  expedition,  so  hazardous  to  himself,"  that  is,  by  implication, 
at  Wittenberg.  Luther  wrote:  Omnes  cupiunt  videre  hominem  tanti  incendii  Heros- 
tratum.  Roscoe  translated:  "Every  one  wishes  to  see  the  man  who  is  to  be  the 
victim  of  such  a  conflagration."  2:  98. 

2  Luther  said:  "I  was  received  by  the  most  reverend  Lord  Cardinal  legate  suffi- 
ciently kindly,  almost  too  reverently,  for  he  was  altogether  different  from  the 
tribe  of  robustious  hunters  of  the  brethren."  LOL,  2:  369.  This  is  from  the 
first  report  that  Luther  gave  of  the  interview.  Afterwards,  when  he  found  that 
the  Cardinal  was  against  him,  he  spoke  differently. 


IN  CONFLICT  WITH  THE  POPE  73 

ter,  and  had  duly  considered  them.  He  did  not  regard  them  as  sufficient 
authority,  for  many  reasons,  but  chiefly  because  they  did  violence  to  the 
teachings  of  the  Scriptures,  which  he  followed  and  preferred.  This 
led  the  Cardinal  to  claim  that  the  Pope  is  above  a  council,  above  the 
Scriptures,  supreme  in  the  Church.  Luther  denied  this,  and  the  issue 
was  fairly  joined.  Then  followed  a  long,  confused  and  unsatisfactory 
wrangle,  in  which  many  questions  were  raised  and  none  settled.  At 
length  the  Cardinal  was  weary  of  the  talk  and  it  closed,  Luther  asking 
time  for  deliberation.1 

The  next  day  Luther  was  again  before  the  Cardinal.  This  time  he 
brought  with  him  a  written  protestation,  in  which  he  claimed  to  be 
faithful  to  the  Pope,  but  at  the  same  time  declined  to  renounce  his  teach- 
ing, or  to  make  the  promise  that  the  Cardinal  had  required.  He  could 
not,  unheard  and  unrefuted,  be  compelled  to  make  a  recantation.  "I 
am  not  to  this  day, "  he  said,  "conscious  of  having  said  anything  contrary 
to  the  sacred  Scripture,  the  Church  Fathers,  the  decretals  of  the  Popes, 
or  right  reason."  On  the  other  hand,  all  his  teachings  appeared  to  him 
sound,  true  and  Catholic.  Nevertheless,  he  was  a  man,  capable  of  error, 
and  he  submitted  himself  to  the  legitimate  judgment  and  decision  of  the 
Church,  and  of  those  who  were  able  to  instruct  him.  He  offered  to  give 
a  reason  for  his  teachings,  publicly  and  orally,  or  in  writing,  and  to  sub- 
mit to  the  judgment  of  several  universities,  including  the  university  of 
Paris,  which  was  then  especially  distinguished.  The  Cardinal  substan- 
tially repeated  what  he  had  said  the  day  before;  and  the  meeting  closed 
with  little  advance  made,  except  that  Luther  had  gained  permission  to 
present  in  writing  a  discussion  of  the  two  propositions  to  which  the 
Cardinal  had  objected.2 

On  the  following  day,  October  13th,  Luther  appeared  before  the  legate 
for  the  third  and  last  time,  bringing  with  him  a  long,  closely  argued  paper. 
His  first  object  was  to  show  why  he  was  not  willing  to  take  the  Extrava- 
gans  of  Clement  VI  as  final  authority.  He  had  several  reasons  for  not  do- 
ing so.  First,  it  contradicted  the  unanimous  opinion  of  the  Church;  second, 
it  wrested  the  Scriptures,  referring  to  indulgences  what  had  been  said 
of  sanctifying  grace;  third,  the  simple  fa'ct  that  it  was  a  papal  decretal 
gave  it  no  binding  authority,  for  such  decretals  have  sometimes  been  false, 
contrary  to  Scripture  and  to  charity;  and  the  law  did  not  require  them  to 

1  Petii,  ut  tempus  daret  deliberandi.     LOL,  2:  37.     The  account  following  of 
Luther's  appearance  before  Cajetan  is  based  on  the  Acta  D.  Martini  Lutheri 
Augusta.     LOL,  2:  365-392.     Cf.  Dieckhoff,  Der  Ablassstreit,  p.  201  seq. 

2  When  Luther  came  on  the  second  day  with  the  vicar-general  of  the  Congre- 
gation of  Observantes,  and  began  in  the  presence  of  a  notary  to  make  his  pro- 
testation after  the  manner  of  disputants,  the  Cardinal  smiled;  and  afterwards 
Luther  spoke  of  their  having  sufficiently  disputed  orally,  and  wished  to  present 
his  case  in  writing,  Cajetan  at  once  replied,  "My  son,  I  have  never  disputed  with 
you,  and  I  do  not  wish  to  dispute."     Luther  to  the  Elector.     LOL,  2:  407. 


74  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

be  held  true,  except  when  they  agreed  with  Scripture  and  did  not  disagree 
with  former  decrees  of  the  Fathers.1  The  Pope  could  not  have  higher 
authority  than  Peter,  and  Peter  had  erred  and  been  reproved,  and  at 
Jerusalem  his  teaching  was  not  accepted  until  it  was  supported  by  the 
approbation  of  James  and  the  consent  of  the  whole  Church.  Moreover, 
he  said,  how  many  earlier  decretals  have  been  contradicted  by  later. 
And  authorities  show  that  not  only  a  general  council,  but  any  Christian, 
is  above  a  Pope  if  he  contends  with  better  authority  and  arguments. 
For  these  reasons  he  could  not  abandon  what  he  had  learned  from  the 
Scriptures,  simply  because  a  single  obscure  papal  decretal  was  opposed  to 
him.  The  words  of  Scripture,  he  said,  which  teach  that  even  the  saints 
fall  short  in  merits,  are  infinitely  to  be  preferred  to  the  words  of  a  Pope 
which  say  that  the  saints  do  good  works  in  excess. 

But,  after  all,  he  cared  little  about  the  question  of  the  Pope's  infalli- 
bility, or  whether  he  should  be  considered  above  a  council.  It  was  not 
a  thing  of  vital  importance.  It  was  the  second  question  that  vitally 
interested  him.  A  man  might  be  a  good  Christian,  whatever  he  should 
think  of  the  Extravagans  of  Clement,  but  he  was  nothing  but  a  heretic 
if  he  did  not  have  faith  in  the  word  of  Christ.  That  faith  is  necessary 
he  proved  in  many  ways,  chiefly  by  quotations  from  the  Scriptures  which 
show  the  power  of  faith.  He  closed  the  long  array  of  proofs  by  bringing 
in  the  testimony,  first  of  Augustine,  and  then  that  of  Ambrose.  "These 
and  many  other  authorities,"  he  said,  "compel  me  to  the  opinion  that 
I  have  expressed.  Wherefore  I  humbly  beg  that  you  will  deal  gently 
with  me,  have  pity  on  my  conscience,  and  show  me  the  light  by  means  of 
which  I  may  have  a  different  understanding;  and  do  not  compel  me  to  a 
revocation  of  those  things  that  in  my  conscience  I  do  not  think  to  be 
other  than  they  are.  While  my  authorities  hold,  I  know  nothing  else 
that  I  can  do  except  obey  God  rather  than  man. "  He  begged  the  Car- 
dinal's intercession  with  the  Pope,  that  a  soul  seeking  only  the  truth  and 
fully  prepared  as  soon  as  it  was  better  instructed,  might  not  be  cast  into 
outer  darkness.  He  was  not  so  arrogant  and  desirous  of  vainglory  as 
to  be  ashamed  to  recall  what  he  had  erroneously  spoken.  He  wished 
first  of  all  that  the  truth  should  prevail;  but  he  did  not  wish  to  be  forced 
against  his  conscience,  and  he  had  no  doubt  that  what  he  had  taught  was 
according  to  the  Scriptures. 

On  the  whole  it  was  an  awkward  meeting.  Neither  party  was  in 
natural  relations  to  the  other.  It  was  in  one  sense  a  trial,  in  another  a 
simple  colloquy.  In  one  sense  Cajetan  was  Luther's  judge,  hi  another 

1  Although  we  ought  to  hear  the  Pope's  decretals  as  the  voice  of  Peter  .  .  .  yet 
it  is  understood  only  of  those  quae  consonae  sunt  sacrae  scripturae  et  a  prionbus 
natrum  decretis  non  dissentunt.  LOL,  2:  373. 


IN  CONFLICT  WITH  THE  POPE  75 

a  fatherly  adviser.1  Luther  was  both  a  declared  heretic  and  a  disputant 
having  a  right  to  show  his  opinion.  This  anomalous  state  of  things 
showed  itself  in  the  conduct  of  the  principal  actors.  As  the  representa- 
tive of  the  Pope,  the  Cardinal  required  a  revocation;  as  a  paternal  adviser 
he  proposed  objections  and  offered  explanations.  Luther,  while  recogniz- 
ing that  he  was  on  trial,  nevertheless  used  the  tone  and  manner  of  dis- 
putation. He  afterwards  complained  that  the  Cardinal  required  him  to 
revoke.  The  Cardinal  complained  that  Luther  insisted  on  disputing. 
He  was  kind  and  conciliatory  in  manner;  he  was  not  vexed,  but  rather 
amused,  at  Luther's  mistaking  him  for#  party  to  a  theological  controversy. 
Luther  evidently  surprised  the  Cardinal's  party  by  his  knowledge  and 
readiness.  He  was  earnest,  candid,  forcible,  but  perfectly  respectful. 
He  acted,  as  he  said,  with  much  reverence,  for  "even  true  things  ought 
to  be  asserted  and  defended  with  humility." 

As  might  have  been  expected,  Luther's  paper  produced  no  impression 
on  Cajetan.  He  promised  to  send  it  to  Rome,  but  still  insisted  that 
Luther  should  revoke,  and  if  he  was  unwilling  to  do  so  he  might  consider 
the  matter  ended  and  expect  to  be  called  no  more  before  him.  In  fact 
Luther  saw  him  no  more.  The  Cardinal  sought  to  accomplish  through 
Luther's  friends,  especially  Staupitz,  what  he  had  been  unable  to  accom- 
plish in  person,  but  in  that  too  he  failed.  Luther  waited  some  days  in 
Augsburg,  and  wrote  two  letters  to  the  Cardinal,  without  gaining  a 
response.2  The  Cardinal's  silence,  and  the  report  that  he  and  Staupitz 
were  to  be  arrested  and  imprisoned,  made  Luther  uneasy  He  thought 
that  he  had  done  enough  to  show  his  obedience  to  the  Elector  and  the 
Pope,  and  that  he  might  at  last  consult  his  own  safety.  One  thing  more, 
however,  he  did.  He  wrote  and  posted  an  appeal  from  Cajetan  to  the 
Pope,3  and  then,  in  the  night,  by  an  unfrequented  gate,  he  left  the  city 
mounted  on  a  hard-trotting  horse,  and  at  a  speed  too  great  for  his  com- 
fort, started  back  to  Wittenberg.  He  had  reached  Augsburg  on  October 
7th,  appeared  before  the  Cardinal  on  the  llth,  left  the  city  on  the  20th, 
and  reached  Wittenberg  the  31st,  the  anniversay  of  Thesis  day. 

The  meeting  at  Augsburg  influenced  all  the  parties  connected  with  the 
controversy,  and  affected  the  conduct  of  the  Elector,  the  Pope  and  Luther. 
It  made  the  Elector  more  distinctly  and  positively  Luther's  friend.  Caje- 
tan wrote  him  that  he  had  become  convinced  that  Luther  was  a  danger- 
ous man,  likely  to  cause  trouble,  and  that  as  such  he  ought  to  be  promptly 
condemned.  It  was  true  that  Luther  had  asserted  certain  things  in  his 
Theses  tentatively  and  for  disputation,  but  it  was  also  true  that  he  had 

1  Ostendi  monuique  paterne,  disputationes  et  sermones  ejus  esse  contra  apostolicam 
doctrinam.     Cajetan  to  Elector  Frederick.     LOL,  2:  406. 

2  LOL,  2:  393  seq.',  De  Wette,  1:  162  seq. 

3  LOL,  2:  397  seq. 


76  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

taught  some  things  positively  and  affirmatively.  Some  of  these  things 
were  against  the  teachings  of  the  Apostolic  See,  and  some  were  damnable. 
He  called  upon  the  Elector,  as  he  valued  his  conscience  and  his  honor, 
to  send  Luther  to  Rome,  or  at  least  to  expel  him  from  his  dominions. 
So  far  as  he,  the  legate  was  concerned,  he  had  washed  his  hands  of  the 
business,  and  referred  it  to  Rome,  where  it  would  be  attended  to.  In 
a  final  paragraph,  or  postscript,  he  exhorted  the  Elector  not  to  believe 
those  who  said  that  Luther's  teachings  were  harmless;  and  not  to  stain 
his  own  and  his  ancestors'  glory  for  the  sake  of  one  little  monk.1 

The  Elector  promptly  handed  the  Cardinal's  letter  to  Luther,  with  the 
request  that  he,  too,  should  make  a  report  of  what  happened  at  Augs- 
burg. He  also  wrote  to  the  Cardinal  himself.  He  had  promised  Cajetan, 
he  said,  that  Luther  should  personally  appear  before  him  at  Augsburg, 
and  he  had  fulfilled  his  promise.  He  had  persuaded  himself  that  the 
Cardinal  would  also  act  according  to  his  promise,  and  after  having  heard 
Martin  dismiss  him  in  a  kind  and  fatherly  way ;  that  he  would  not  compel 
him  to  revoke  without  having  heard  and  discussed  his  case,  as  Martin 
reported  that  he  had  done.  Besides,  there  were  many  learned  men  in 
the  universities  and  elsewhere  who  could  never  be  induced  to  say  that 
Luther's  doctrines  were  unchristian  and  heretical.  Some  who  had  con- 
demned hun  had  done  so  because  his  teachings  interfered  with  their 
present  gains.  If  he  had  any  reason  for  thinking  Luther  a  heretic,  he 
would  not  need  any  exhortation  or  admonition  to  prompt  him  to  do 
what  he  ought.  He  was  surprised  that  the  Cardinal  had  attempted 
to  influence  him  to  send  Luther  to  Rome,  or  to  expel  him  from  his  terri- 
tories, by  the  threat  that  the  Roman  Curia  would  now  take  charge  of 
the  case.  Luther  had  never  been  convicted  of  heresy.  He  enclosed 
with  his  own  letter  Luther's  account  of  the  Augsburg  meeting.  The 
Elector's  letter  is  dated  December  8,  1518.2 

The  Cardinal's  report  to  Rome,  and  particularly  Luther's  appeal, 
made  it  necessary  for  the  Pope  to  speak.  He  did  speak,  in  a  Brief  to 
Cardinal  Cajetan,  the  avowed  purpose  of  which  was  to  remove  all  excuse 
for  those  who  alleged  ignorance  as  an  apology  for  opposing  the  teachings 
of  the  Apostolic  See.  The  Brief,3  slightly  abridged,  runs  as  follows: 

1  Propter  unum  Fraterculum.     LOL,  2:  409.     The  Cardinal  is  very  earnest. 
He  says,  in  a  postscript,  Iterum  atque  iterum  rogo,  ut  Dominatio  vestra  illustrissima 
non  permittat  se  decipi  a  dicentibus,  etc.     Cajetan  is  reported  as  saying  of  Luther, 
"I  do  not  wish  to  talk  any  more  with  this  beast.    For  he  has  deep  eyes  and  won- 
derful speculations  in  his  head."     Schaff,  6:  174. 

2  All  the  early  attempts  of  the  Roman  Church  to  deal  with  Luther  were  simply 
attempts  to  crush  him,  without  trial  or  hearing;  his  case  was  prejudged  from  the  be- 
ginning, and  the  Curia  would  listen  to  no  defense.    He  had  questioned  the  papal 
power,  and  he  was  to  be  shown  what  the  papal  power  could  do  to  him.     All  these 
plans  were  brought  to  naught  by  the  Elector's  firm  letter. 

*  For  this  document  see  LOL,  2:  428  seq.,  and  Loscher,  2:  494  seq.  The  latter 
calls  it  a  bull  or  decretal,  and  in  this  he  is  followed  by  most  historians.  But  this 


IN  CONFLICT  WITH  THE  POPE  77 

Since,  after  your  circumspection  arrived  in  Germany,  it  came 
to  our  ears  that  certain  of  the  religious,  even  some  appointed  for  the 
preaching  of  the  word  of  God,  by  publicly  preaching  concerning 
indulgences — hitherto  from  time  immemorial  customarily  granted  by 
us  and  the  Roman  pontiffs,  our  predecessors — have  imprinted  errors 
on  the  hearts  of  many1.  .  .  .  We  enjoin  that  by  our  authority  you 
approve  what  things  are  deserving  of  praise,  but  that  you  be  careful 
to  reprobate  and  condemn  those  things  that  have  been  less  well  said, 
even  by  those  who  profess  themselves  willing  to  follow  the  doctrine 
of  the  Roman  Church.  And,  lest  anyone  should  hereafter  proless 
ignorance  of  the  teaching  of  the  Roman  Church  about  such  indul- 
gences and  their  efficacy,  or  excuse  himself  on  pretext  of  such  igpo- 
rance,  or  aid  himself  by  counterfeit  protestations,  but  that  the  guilty 
may  be  convicted  of  notorious  lying,  and  may  be  justly  condemned, 
we  proceed  to  show  thee  by  these  presents  what  the  Roman  Church 
(which  the  rest  are  bound  to  follow  as  a  mother)  has  handed  down. 
The  Roman  Pontiff,  successor  of  Peter  the  key-bearer,  and  vicar  of 
Jesus  Christ  on  earth,  by  the  power  of  the  keys  (which  he  is  to  show  by 
lifting  the  burdens  on  the  faithful  of  Christ,  viz.  the  guilt  and  penalty 
due  for  actual  sins,  the  guilt  indeed  by  the  mediating  sacrament  of 
penance,  but  the  temporal  penalty  due  according  to  divine  justice 
for  actual  sins  by  the  mediation  of  ecclesiastical  indulgence)  is  able 
to  grant  for  reasonable  causes  to  the  faithful  of  Christ,  who  in  the 
judgment  of  charity  are  members  of  Christ,  whether  they  are  in  this 
life  or  in  purgatory,  indulgences  out  of  the  superabundance  of  merits 
of  Christ  and  the  saints,  and  as  well  for  the  living  as  for  the  dead, 
granting  indulgence  by  his  Apostolic  authority,  can  dispense  the 
Treasure  of  merits  of  Christ  and  the  Saints,  can  confer  this  indulgence 
by  means  of  absolution  or  can  transfer  it  by  means  of  intercessory 
prayer  (per  modum  suffragii).  And  for  that  reason,  all,  as  well  living 
as  dead,  who  have  in  good  faith  (veraciter)  obtained  all  indulgences 
of  this  kind,  are  freed  from  all  temporal  penalty  due  according  to 
the  divine  justice  for  their  actual  sins,  as  much  as  equals  the  indul- 
gence given  and  obtained.  And  so,  we  decree  by  Apostolic  authority, 
it  must  be  held  and  preached  by  all,  under  pain  of  the  greater  ex- 
communication, from  which  those  incurring  it  shall  be  absolved  by 
no  one  save  the  Roman  Pontiff,  unless  in  the  article  of  death. 

Though  the  language  of  this  Brief  is  involved  and  turgid  beyond  the 
average  of  even  papal  documents,  there  can  be  little  doubt  as  to  the 

appears  to  be  an  error.  A  bull  has  certain  peculiar  and  invariable  criteria,  chief 
in  importance  among  which  is  that  the  document  shall  be  addressed  to  the  whole 
Church.  But  the  above  is  a  private  document,  a  commission  addressed  to  Caje- 
tan,  bearing  date  Nov.  9,  1518.  It  therefore  does  not,  in  any  case,  whatever  we 
call  it,  come  under  the  definition  of  infallibility:  "When  the  Roman  Pontiff  speaks 
ex  cathedra — that  is,  when  he,  using  his  office  as  pastor  and  teacher  of  all  Chris- 
tians, in  virtue  of  his  Apostolic  office  defines  a  doctrine  of  faith  and  morals,  to 
be  held  by  the  whole  Church,"  his  decisions  are  infallible  "by  the  divine  assistance 
promised  him  in  blessed  Peter."  (Schaff,  "Creeds,"  2:  270.)  It  is  not  correct, 
therefore,  to  say  with  Kostlin,  that  in  this  document  the  Pope  lays  down  the  doc- 
trine of  indulgences,  except  as  his  own  opinion  in  a  private  communication;  nor 
may  we  say  with  Kurtz  and  Lea  that  he  "defines"  the  doctrine;  but  Fisher  is 
correct  when  he  says  that  the  Pope  "asserts"  the  doctrine  of  indulgences.  (Koat- 
lin,  124,  Lea,  "Indulgences,"  3:  77,  Fisher,  "Reformation,"  97.) 


78  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

Pope's  meaning.  Luther  had  contended  that  there  is  no  Treasure  of 
merit,  which  could  be  relied  upon  as  a  source  of  indulgences;  the  Pope 
asserted  that  there  is  such  a  Treasure  and  that  he  dispensed  it.  Luther 
had  contended  that  the  Pope  could  only  remit  the  penalty  that  he  had 
imposed  or  that  had  been  imposed  according  to  the  canons  of  the  Church; 
the  Pope  claimed  that  he  could  remit  the  penalty  for  actual  sins,  due  to 
divine  justice.  Luther  had  urged  that  indulgences  avail  only  for  the 
living;  the  Pope  declares  that  they  are  equally  efficacious  for  living  and 
dead.  Luther  had  denied  that  the  Pope  has  power  to  make  new  laws; 
the  Pope,  assumes  the  right  to  make  a  new  law,  and  to  declare  what  was 
to  be  believed  about  indulgences.  In  short,  everything  that  Luther  had 
condemned  in  his  contest  with  the  indulgence-mongers  was  owned  and 
asserted  by  the  Pope.  Tetzel,  Prierias,  Hoogstraten,  Eck,  and  all  the 
•restj.  retired  into  the  background,  and  Luther  stood  in  the  arena  face  to 
face  with  Leo  X,  who  had  thrust  his  advocates  aside,  and  stood  forth  in 
his  own  behalf.  Would  Luther  dare  to  attack  him? 

He  had  seen  at  Augsburg  that  he  had  reached  a  point  where  he  must 
abandon  all  or  attempt  more.  His  appeal  from  Cajetan  to  the  Pope 
was  a  last  resort.  If  that  should  fail,  what  then?  He  expected  it  to 
fail.  At  most  he  had  only  the  faintest  hope  that  it  would  not  fail,  and 
yet  it  was  well  that  he  wrote  it.  It  put  him  in  the  strongest  possible 
position  of  defense.  No  one  would  be  able  to  misunderstand  him:  he 
was  not  a  rebel  against  rightful  authority;  he  would  give  the  Pope  all 
rightful  honor.  If  it  should  come  to  the  worst,  and  the  Pope  should 
condemn  him,  all  the  world  would  know  exactly  why-  it  was  that  he  was 
condemned,  and  many  would  feel  that  the  Pope  was  in  the  wrong.  He 
acted  with  remarkable  wisdom  as  well  as  courage.  Possibly  a  sense  of 
danger  made  him  prudent  and  unwilling  to  neglect  anything  that  might 
be  necessary  to  safety;  or  it  may  be,  a  traditional  reverence  for  the  Pope, 
rudely  shaken  but  not  yet  destroyed,  held  him  back;  or,  it  may  be,  he 
was  restrained  and  made  cautious  by  the  influence  of  the  Elector,  a  wise, 
just,  brave  man,  who  communicated  his  own  moderation  and  sense  of 
justice  to  those  about  him,  All  three  of  these  causes  may  have  been  at 
work,  but  we  may  perhaps  give  most  weight  to  the  last.  At  this  stage 
of  his  life  and  work,  it  was  x>f  great  importance  to  him  that  he  was  asso- 
ciated with  a  good  and  great  man,  still  a  devout  Catholic,  of  whom  he 
stood  in  filial  awe. 

On  his  way  back  from  Augsburg  he  saw  for  the  first  time  the  Pope's 
letter  of  the  2d  of  August,  ordering  his  arrest.  Soon  after  he  saw  Caje- 
tan's  letter  to  the  Elector,  stating  that  he  had  turned  his  case  over  to 
the  Pope  and  advising  the  Elector  to  give  him  up.  This  meant  that  the 
plan  of  an  investigation  in  Germany  was  abandoned.  Luther  no  longer 


IN  CONFLICT  WITH  THE  POPE  79 

doubted  what  the  Pope  would  do;  and  he  did  not  long  hesitate  what  he 
should  do.  In  the  first  place,  he  wrote  an  account  of  his  interview  with 
Cajetan,  and  published  it,  together  with  the  Pope's  brief  and  a  note 
thereon,  against  the  advice,  and  even  command,  of  the  Elector.  Now 
for  the  first  time  he  spoke  bitterly  of  the  Pope.  In  a  letter  to  Spalatin 
he  mentions  "the  apostolical,  or  rather  diabolical  Brief."1  He  thought 
it  incredible  that  so  monstrous  a  thing  should  have  proceeded  from  any 
Pope,  and  especially  from  Leo  X.  " Therefore,"  he  says,  "whoever  the 
fool  was  who  in  the  Pope's  name  thought  to  frighten  me  with  such  a 
decree,  let  him  know  that  I  can  see  through  impostures.  "2  In  the 
Postilla  that  he  wrote  to  this  papal  letter,  he  mentioned  the  Pope's  state- 
ment that  he  had  continued  to  publish  heretical  books  after  he  had  been 
warned,  and  calls  it  "a  palpable  lie"  (apertum  mendacium).  He  men- 
tioned too  that  he  had  been  cited  to  Rome  on  the  7th  of  August,  and 
required  to  be  there  in  sixty  days,  and  just  sixteen  days  after  the  cita- 
tion (that  is,  the  23d  of  August)  the  order  was  given  to  the  legate  to 
arrest  him.  Is  it,  he  asked,  the  custom  of  the  Roman  Curia  on  the  same 
day  to  cite,  admonish,  condemn  and  declare  condemned  a  man  hi  his 
absence  and  in  ignorance  of  what  was  going  on?3  In  all  this  he  put  the 
Pope  at  a  disadvantage. 

In  one  sense  the  Pope  had  not  misrepresented  the  case.  Some  of 
Luther's  books  had  been  actually  published  after  the  citation.  They 
were  not  published,  however,  by  the  will  and  purpose  of  Luther  formed 
after  the  Pope  had  admonished  him.  They  were  already  in  press  before  the 
summons  came.  Yet  it  is  also  true  that  Luther  might  have  suppressed 
them,  had  he  been  so  minded.  It  was  one  of  those  cases  in  which  party 
zeal  may  see  a  grave  offense  where  candor  will  see  comparatively  little 
to  blame.  If  the  Pope  had  been  anxious  to  know  the  truth,  he  might  have 
known  it.  On  the  other  hand,  if  Luther  had  been  disposed  to  judge 
charitably,  he  would  not  have  accused  the  Pope  of  falsehood.  But 
there  was  enough  of  truth  in  the  accusation  to  dispose  men  to  feel  that 
Luther  was  not  fairly  judged;  and  this  disposition  was  increased  by  the 
Pope's  haste  to  bring  Luther  before  him.  He  seemed  to  be  influenced 
by  passion  and  resentment.  This  aroused  the  sympathies  of  generous 
men,  even  though  they  might  suspect  Luther  of  being  a  heretic,  and  drew 
his  friends  closer  to  him.  The  head  of  the  Church,  he  who  ought  to  be 
the  fountain  and  source  of  justice,  had  acted  arbitrarily,  harshly,  unjustly; 
he  who  ought  to  be  the  friend  of  the  oppressed  had, himself  become  an 
oppressor. 

As  the  Pope  had  failed  in  his  high  office,  there  was  only  one  recourse. 

1  The  letter  of  August  23,  to  Cajetan,  previously  summarized. 

2  Dated  October  31.     De  Wette,  1:  166. 

3  For  this  Postilla,  see  LOL,  2:  358. 


80  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

Only  a  general  council  could  help,  and  Luther  appealed  to  a  general  coun- 
cil.1 This  appeal  did  not  differ  in  its  general  form  from  his  appeal  to 
the  Pope.  It  gave  a  vigorous,  plausible  statement  of  Luther's  wrongs 
as  they  appeared  to  him.  It  complained  that  no  account  was  made  of 
his  submission  to  the  Pope,  and  his  readiness  to  recant  as  soon  as  he  should 
be  convinced  of  error;  that  unheard,  with  no  reasons  given,  in  simple 
tyranny  and  in  the  plenitude  of  power,  the  Pope  was  seeking  to  force  him 
to  give  up  opinions  that  he  believed  to  be  true.  In  behalf  of  the  right 
to  learn  from  the  Scriptures,  and  in  opposition  to  the  effort  to  force  him 
to  abandon  a  true,  wholesome  Christian  faith  and  accept  the  vain,  lying 
opinions  of  men,  he  appealed  from  the  Pope  to  a  future  legitimate  council 
to  be  held  in  a  safe  place. 

In  making  this  appeal  he  was  seeking  the  remedy  that  the  Church, 
from  the  earliest  times,  had  provided  in  just  such  cases.  He  was  exer- 
cising a  right  that  for  centuries  had  been  freely  exercised.  It  had  been 
little  more  than  a  hundred  years  since  the  corruptions  of  the  Papacy  had 
forced  the  Christian  world  to  assemble  in  council  at  Constance,  where 
three  contending  Popes  were  deposed  and  a  new  Pope  was  chosen  in 
their  stead.  But  the  extreme  papal  party  was  now  in  power;  and  an 
appeal  to  a  council  had  itself  been  pronounced  an  act  of  rebellion  and 
treason.2  Luther's  appeal,  therefore,  the  voice  of  one  man  pleading  for 
judgment,  would  be  in  vain,  unless  in  some  way  his  case  could  be  felt 
to  be  the  case  of  a  great  party.  Multitudes  felt  it  to  be  so.  It  had  been 
brought  about  that  he  stood  for  a  policy,  and  that  if  he  should  fall  privi- 
leges of  the  Church  dear  to  many  would  fall  with  him.  The  contest 
between  him  and  the  Pope  was  the  old  contest  that  had  been  from  the 
beginning,  and  ever  shall  be:  the  contest  for  private  judgment  and 
individual  rights  on  the  one  hand  and  the  centralization  of  power  on  the 
other.  Henceforth  there  were  two  parties  in  Europe:  the  party  of  Luther 
and  the  party  of  the  Pope. 

1  LOL,  2:  446  aeq.     This  document  will  be  found  in  Appendix  III. 

2  In  the  constitution  Execrabilis  of  Pius  II,  January  18,  1459,  Mag.  Bull,  I:  369; 
reenacted  and  enlarged  by  Julius  II,  in  the  bull  Suspecte  regiminis,  July  1,  1609, 
Mag.  Bull,  I:  501. 


CHAPTER  IV 

THE   LEIPZIG  DISPUTATION 

IN  less  than  a  year  after  the  Theses  had  been  nailed  to  the  church  door, 
Luther's  case  had  passed  from  the  jurisdiction  of  universities  and  theo- 
logians to  that  of  the  Emperor  and  the  papal  court.  And  each  step  in 
advance  had  revealed  more  clearly  the  gravity  and  difficulty  of  the  situa- 
tion. The  Pope  had  consented  to  suspend  the  order  for  Luther's  appear- 
ance at  Rome,  and  to  permit  instead  the  meeting  with  Cajetan  at  Augs- 
burg. This  had  been  done,  in  great  part  at  least,  in  deference  to  the 
wishes  of  the  Elector  of  Saxony,  who  had  given  unmistakable  proofs 
of  his  friendship  for  Luther.  As  long  as  the  Elector  continued  to  favor 
him,  the  Pope  might  well  hestitate  to  use  extreme  measures  against 
him — it  would  be  awkward  to  attempt  an  arrest  of  the  heretical  monk 
and  fail.  If  only  the  Elector  could  be  gained,  everything  else  would 
follow.  It  was  thought  worth  while  to  make  the  attempt. 

It  was  the  Pope's  custom  to  give  every  year  to  one  of  the  princes  of 
the  Church  a  golden  rose,  as  a  mark  of  his  peculiar  favor.  This  year  he 
extended  the  favor  to  Elector  Frederick,  and  sent  it  by  the  hand  of  Charles 
von  Miltitz,  who  was  supposed,  not  without  reason,  to  be  persona  grata 
at  Wittenberg.  We  have  seen  how  the  university  there  sought  his  good 
offices  in  favor  of  Luther,  begging  him  as  a  German  to  intercede  for  and 
help  a  German  who  was  in  trouble.  Miltitz  received  his  commission 
and  instruction,  and  everything  supposed  to  be  necessary  to  his  under- 
taking, on  the  4th  of  October,  just  four  days  after  Luther's  escape  from 
Augsburg.  He  was  to  let  the  Elector  know  that  he  had  the  rose  for  him, 
but  not  to  give  it  to  him  until  he  had  shown  a  willingness  to  accede  to 
the  Pope's  wishes.  The  Brief  defining  the  papal  view  of  indulgences  was 
a  part  of  the  plan.  It  had  been  claimed  that  Luther,  in  opposing  them, 
had  violated  no  law  and  had  been  guilty  of  no  heresy.  The  Brief  was 
intended  to  answer  and  silence  this  claim.  It  took  away  all  excuse  from 
the  Elector,  and  made  it  necessary  for  him  to  acknowledge  Luther's 
heresy,  unless  indeed,  he  was  willing  to  deny  the  finality  of  the  Pope's 
authority.  He  was  to  be  enticed  by  the  rose,  and  impelled  by  the  Brief. 
Miltitz  also  took  with  him  letters  from  the  Pope  to  Pfeffinger,  a  counsel- 
lor of  the  Elector,  and  Spalatin,  whose  influence  was  known,  asking  them 
to  persuade  the  Elector  to  abandon  Luther.1 

1  The  two  letters  are  in  LOL,  2:  446-449.    They  are  very  nearly  alike.    In  both 
the  Pope  says,  "Knowing  how  great  your  favor  is  with  the  Duke,  and  how  greatly 

81 


82  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

Miltitz  traveled  slowly,  stopping  at  one  place  and  another,  and  had 
full  opportunity  to  find  out  the  temper  of  the  Germans.  His  eyes  were 
partially  opened.  On  December  27th  he  reached  Altenburg,  and  had  an 
interview  with  Spalatin  in  his  own  house.  Here  his  eyes  were  still  further 
opened.  Spalatin  made  him  understand,  as  he  had  not  before  under- 
stood, the  extreme  provocation  which  Tetzel  and  his  assistants  had  given 
Luther.  He  saw  the  first  thing  for  him  to  do  was  to  free  himself  (and,  if 
possible,  the  Pope)  from  any  suspicion  of  sympathy  with  the  extrava- 
gance and  indecency  of  the  indulgence  sellers.  Tetzel  was  at  Leipzig. 
Miltitz  at  once  summoned  him  to  meet  him  at  Altenburg.  Tetzel  replied 
excusing  himself;  he  could  not  leave  Leipzig  with  safety.  Martin  Luther, 
the  Augustinian,  so  he  wrote,  had  so  stirred  up  the  mighty  ones  in  Ger- 
many and  elsewhere  against  him,  that  he  was  nowhere  safe.1  Miltitz 
could  easily  believe  this.  It  accorded  with  what  he  had  learned  by  his 
own  observation,  and  strengthened  impressions  that  he  had  received. 
It  was,  therefore,  with  a  good  understanding  of  the  situation  that  he 
met  Luther  hi  the  first  days  of  January,  1519. 

They  met  in  Altenburg.  This  meeting  was  important,  not  so  much 
for  what  it  accomplished,  as  for  what  it  showed  to  be  still  possible.  In 
the  last  years  of  his  life,  twenty-six  years  after  it  occurred,  Luther  de- 
cribed  it.  After  the  lapse  of  so  many  years  it  might  be  easy  for  him  to 
interpret  what  occurred  hi  the  light  of  subsequent  events;  and  to  think 
that  he  understood  at  the  time  what  in  fact  he  did  not  understand  until 
afterwards.  But  it  must  be  said  that  his  reminiscences  are  unusually 
trustworthy.  From  the  very  first  there  were  sharply  defined,  prominent 
incidents,  to  which  he  had  occasion  frequently  to  recur.  He  often  thought 
of  them  and  spoke  of  them,  and  so  kept  them  fresh  in  memory.  In  some 
cases  it  happens  that  his  recollected  impressions  can  be  compared  with 
letters  or  other  records  made  at  the  time;  and  in  such  cases  his  memory 
is  found  to  be  wonderfully  faithful.  His  meeting  with  Miltitz  made  a 
deep  impression  on  him  and  was  no  doubt  often  in  his  mind.  No  doubt, 
too,  he  often  spoke  of  it  among  his  friends.  According  to  his  recollections 
Miltitz  sought  to  make  the  most  favorable  impression  possible.  He 
assumed  an  air  of  easy  confidence  and  familiarity.  "0  Martin,"  he 
said,  "I  thought  that  you  were  some  old  theologian,  and  I  see  that  you 

he  esteems  the  wisdom  and  prudence  of  your  advice,  we  exhort  you  in  the  Lord 
and  paternally  require  you,"  etc.  What  Luther  thought  of  Pfeffinger  may  be 
gathered  in  what  he  said  in  a  letter  to  the  Elector  (1517):  "Most  gracious  lord 
and  prince,  inasmuch  as  you  formerly  promised  me  a  new  garment,  I  now  beg  to  put 
you  in  mind  of  the  same.  But  I  must  ask,  as  I  did  before,  that  if  Pfeffinger  is  to 
fulfil  the  promise,  he  do  it  by  deed  and  not  by  soft  words.  'He  knows  well  how  to 
spin  fine  words,  but  that  never  makes  good  cloth."  De  Wette,  1:  77. 

1  Wann  Martinus  Luther,  Augustiner,  hat  die  Machtigen  nicht  allein  schier  in 
alien  deutschen  Landen,  sondern  auch  in  den  Konigreichen  zu  Behem,  Ungarn,  und 
Polen,  also  wider  mich  erregt  und  bewegt,  dass  ich  nirgent  sicker  bin.  Loscher,  3 :  20. 


THE  LEIPZIG  DISPUTATION  83 

are  yet  in  the  prime  of  life. "  He  went  on  to  mention  proofs  of  Luther's 
popularity.  He  had  found  three  men  for  Luther  where  he  had  found  one 
for  the  Pope.  He  gave  it  as  his  opinion  that  he  could  not  take  Luther 
to  Rome  even  if  he  had  twenty-five  thousand  men.  He  laughed  at  the 
blunders  of  the  women  whose  opinion  he  had  asked  of  the  Roman  See. 
"The  Roman  See?"  they  said,  "how  can  we  know  what  kind  of  seats  you 
have  at  Rome,  whether  they  are  wood  or  stone?"  They  did  not  under- 
stand the  double  meaning  of  Stuhl  (sedes),  denoting  as  it  did  both  seat 
and  the  See.1 

In  his  old  age,  when  Luther  wrote  of  this  meeting,  he  insinuates  the 
suspicion  that  Miltitz  was  acting  a  part.  He  had  that  suspicion  at  the 
time.  But  at  any  rate,  Miltitz  had  chosen  the  most  effective  way  of 
dealing  with  the  man  against  whom  Rome  had  tried  first  ridicule  and 
then  authority  and  had  failed  with  both.  Luther's  sentence  was  always 
for  open  war;  of  wiles  he  had  small  store,  and  for  them  small  respect. 
The  downright  blow  of  Richard's  two-handed  sword  was  always  his. 
But  he  was  susceptible  to  flattery  and  suave  persuasion,  though  unmoved 
by  denunciation  or  threat.  And  so,  whether  the  papal  envoy's  condescen- 
sion and  expressed  good  will  were  genuine  or  feigned,  he  made  very 
considerable  advance.  He  asked  Luther  to  consult  for  the  things  that 
make  for  peace,  and  promised  to  bring  it  about  that  the  Pope  would  do 
the  same.  Luther  readily  promised  to  do  all  that  he  could  with  a  safe 
conscience,  saying  at  the  same  time  that  he  also  desired  peace,  that  he 
had  been  forced  to  do  what  he  had  done,  and  that  he  was  in  no  way  to 
blame  for  it.2  This  good  beginning  led  to  an  agreement  which  Luther 
promptly  reported  to  the  Elector.  Both  parties  were  to  be  forbidden  to 
preach  or  write  on  the  matters  in  dispute.  Miltitz  was  to  report  to  the 
Pope  the  state  of  things  as  he  found  them,  and  induce  the  Pope  to  com- 
mission some  learned  man  to  point  out  the  erroneous  articles  in  Luther's 
writings;  and  Luther,  convinced  of  his  error,  was  to  retract  it  and  refrain 
from  all  further  attempts  to  weaken  the  honor  and  power  of  the  Roman 
Church.  Besides,  he  was  himself  to  write  to  the  Pope,  confess  that  he 
had  been  too  hot  and  sharp,  show  that  he  did  not  mean  anything  against 
the  Church,  but  rather,  as  a  true  child  of  the  Church,  had  opposed  those 
who  were  bringing  scandal  and  reproach  upon  it.  Moreover,  he  was 
willing  to  publish  a  paper  warning  the  people  not  to  understand  him  as 
saying  anything, in  his  writings  to  the  disgrace,  but  rather  to  the  honor 

1  Exploraverat  etiam  mulierculas  et  virgenes  in  hospitiis,  quidnam  de  sede  Romano 
sentirent?    Illae  ut  ignarae  hujus  vocabuli  et  sellam  domesticam  cogitantes  responde- 
bant:  Quid  nos  scire  possumus,  quales  vos  Romae  habeatis  sellas,  ligneasne  an  lapideasf 
Preface  LOL,  1:  21. 

2  In  a  letter  of  February  2,  1519,  he  says:  Mutavit  violentiam  in  benevolentiam 
fallacissime  simulatam.     De  Wette,  1:  216. 


84  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

of  the  Church.  His  fault  had  been  that  he  had  brought  out  the  truth 
with  too  much  zeal,  and  perhaps  unseasonably.1 

Miltitz  had  made  an  impression  on  him,  and  he  seems  to  have  thought, 
at  intervals,  that  the  controversy  was  in  the  way  of  satisfactory  settle- 
ment. He  said  to  the  Elector  that  if  the  affair  were  let  alone,  "it  would 
bleed  itself  to  death."  What  he  thought  at  the  time  he  continued  to 
think  down  to  the  close  of  his  life.  He  said  in  1545,  that  the  plans  of 
Miltitz  were  lightly  esteemed,  but  in  his  judgment  if  the  Archbishop  of 
Mainz  had  listened  to  his  warning  in  the  beginning,  and  even  afterwards, 
if  before  the  Pope  had  condemned  him  unheard  and  raged  against  him 
with  his  bulls,  they  had  followed  Miltitz's  advice  and  at  once  restrained 
the  madness  of  Tetzel,  things  would  not  have  gone  to  so  great  lengths.2 

Luther  fulfilled  his  promise:  he  wrote  his  address  to  the  people  in 
February,  and  on  March  3  he  wrote  the  promised  letter  to  the  Pope. 
It  is  not  long;  there  is  no  defiance  in  it;  it  is  written  with  apparent  sin- 
cerity and  humility.  He  begins  by  saying,  "Most  blessed  Father, 
necessity  again  forces  me,  the  lowest  of  men,  the  dust  of  the  earth,  to 
speak  to  your  blessedness  and  so  great  majesty."  He  begs  the  Pope 
graciously  to  incline  his  ears,  truly  the  ears  of  Christ,  to  his  little  sheep. 
He  laments  that  what  he  had  undertaken  for  the  honor  of  the  Church 
had  been  misunderstood,  and  yet,  "I  can  scarcely  bear  your  wrath," 
said  he,  "and  how  to  escape  it  I  do  not  know."  He  had  been  asked  to 
revoke  the  teachings  of  the  Theses.  He  would  readily  do  it,  if  by  so 
doing  he  could  accomplish  what  was  sought  by  a  revocation;  but  owing 
to  the  opposition  of  his  enemies  his  writings  had  been  too  widely  scattered 
to  be  recalled,  and  the  impression  they  had  made  was  too  deep  to  be 
effaced.  Besides,  in  Germany,  where  learning  then  greatly  flourished,  if 
he  should  wish  to  honor  the  Church,  to  revoke  was  the  very  last  thing 
that  he  ought  to  do;  his  enforced  revocation  would  but  give  occasion  for 
still  further  dishonoring  of  the  Roman  Church.  It  was  his  enemies,  the 
men  whom  he  had  withstood,  who  had  brought  injury,  almost  infamy, 
upon  the  Church  among  the  Germans;  and,  as  if  that  were  not  enough, 
they  had  accused  him  to  the  Pope  as  the  author  of  their  own  rashness. 

1  For  accounts  of  this  interview  and  its  result,  see  documents  in  Loscher,  2: 
652  seq.;  Walch,  15:  690  seq.',  and  Luther's  letters  to  the  Elector  (De  Wette,  1:  209) 
and  his  friend  Christopher  Scheurl  (#>.  212).    As  to  his  assertion  that  he  always 
honored  the  Church,  compare  the  conclusion  of  his  account  of  the  hearing  before 
Cajetan  (LOL,  2:  392):  Protestor  me  color e  et  aequi  Romanum  ecclesiam  in  om- 
nibus, solum  ttlis  resisto,  qui  nomine  ecdesiae  Romanae  Babyloniam  nobis  statuere 
moliuntur,  etc.     Cf.  also  Dieckhoff,  Der  Ablassstreit,  p.  242  seq. 

2  LOL,  1:  21.    Miltitz  was  very  much  pleased  with  the  turn  of  affairs;  he  em- 
braced Luther  and  shed  tears.    Luther  wrote  Spalatin  that  he  pretended  not  to 
know  that  the  nuncio's  tears  were  forced,  crocodile  tears,  in  short.     If  we  accept 
literally  and  fully  what  he  says  of  himself,  we  must  believe  that  he  was  not  less 
an  actor  than  Miltitz.    At  least,  among  his  friends  and  privately  he  claimed  the 
character  of  shrewdness  and  insight,  at  the  expense  of  a  large-hearted  sincerity. 


THE  LEIPZIG  DISPUTATION  85 

He  continues:  "Now,  most  blessed  Father,  in  the  presence  of  God  and 
the  whole  creation,  I  testify  that  I  have  never  wished,  and  that  I  do  not 
to  this  day  wish,  to  touch  in  any  way  your  power,  or  the  power  of  the 
Roman  Church.  So  far  from  it,  I  most  gladly  confess  that  the  power 
of  the  Church  is  over  all  things,  and  that  nothing  hi  heaven  or  earth  is 
to  be  preferred  before  it  except  only  Jesus  Christ,  the  Lord  of  all.  ... 
The  one  thing  that  I  can  do  in  this  case,  that  I  freely  promise:  that  I 
will  hereafter  let  alone  the  question  of  indulgences,  and  say  nothing  about 
it  (if  only  my  adversaries  restrain  their  vain  boasts)  and  that  I  will 
hereafter  publish  abroad  such  things  as  shall  tend  to  enlighten  men  and 
incline  them  to  reverence  truly  the  Roman  Church,  and  not  to  impute 
to  it  the  rashness  of  my  opponents,  nor  imitate  toward  it  the  roughness 
that  I  have  used,  or  rather  abused."  His  only  purpose  was  that  our 
mother,  the  Roman  Church,  might  not  be  defiled  by  avarice,  and  the 
people  deceived  into  the  error  of  preferring  indulgences  to  charity.  As 
to  all  other  things,  as  they  were  matters  of  indifference,  he  cared  nothing 
for  them.  He  closed  with  the  sentence,  "May  Christ  preserve  your 
blessedness  forever." 

This  letter  is  sufficiently  conciliatory,  humble  if  we  please — Luther 
had  written  very  differently  a  short  time  before.  His  change  of  spirit 
was  owing  partly  to  Miltitz,  and  partly,  no  doubt,  to  his  natural  shrinking 
from  a  conflict  not  yet  gone  beyond  the  point  of  possible  retreat,  the  result 
of  which  no  one  could  foresee.  He  had  been  approached  on  the  weak 
side.  Kindness,  gentleness  of  manner,  and  a  condescending  familiarity, 
coming  from  a  man  of  high  position,  might  go  far  toward  softening  any- 
one, but  especially  one  who  had  sprung  from  the  humbler  walks  of 
life,  and  had  not  yet  outgrown  an  almost  superstitious  reverence  for 
nobility,  whether  secular  or  ecclesiastical.1  He  who  had  been  aroused 
by  opposition  was  well-nigh  won  by  the  friendliness,  real  or  assumed,  of 
the  papal  nuncio.  What  the  Pope  on  his  side  might  have  done  can  never 
be  known.  Just  at  that  time  an  event  occurred  that  made  it  necessary 
for  him  to  suspend  proceedings  against  Luther.  The  Emperor,  Maxi- 
milian I,  died  January  12,  1519,  and  the  choice  of  his  successor  seemed  to 
Leo  X,  and  doubtless  to  others,  a  matter  of  greater  importance  than  the 
conciliation  or  destruction  of  a  refractory  monk.  But  besides  turning 
the  Pope's  attention  from  Luther's  case  to  other  and  more  pressing  con- 
cerns, the  Emperor's  death  brought  the  Elector  into  especial  prominence. 
He  became  regent  of  the  Empire  for  Northern  Germany,  and  in  his  new 

1  It  is  significant  that  the  Elector,  while  perfectly  friendly  to  Luther,  and  proud 
of  him  as  a  professor  in  his  university,  permitted  him  to  go  afoot  to  Augsburg,  and 
took  no  pains  to  provide  a  suitable  outfit  for  him.  Later  he  went  in  a  carriage  to 
Leipzig,  and  in  still  greater  state  to  Worms.  He  was  still  only  the  peasant's  son 
at  the  beginning  of  1519. 


86  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

position  more  than  ever  held  Luther's  fate  in  his  hands.  In  the  changed 
circumstances,  an  attack  on  Luther  was  less  likely  to  succeed,  and  at  the 
same  time,  the  Pope  had  less  inclination  and  opportunity  to  press  it. 

Miltitz  continued  his  negotiations.  Leaving  Altenburg  he  went  to 
Leipzig,  and  in  pursuance  of  his  plan  of  separating  himself  and  the  papal 
cause  from  Luther's  original  opponents,  called  Tetzel  before  him.  A 
victim  was  needed,  and  the  notorious  preacher  of  indulgences  was  to  be 
sacrificed.  Tetzel  had  a  double  mortification:  he  was  reproached  with 
being  the .author  of  all  the  calamities  with  which  the  Church  was  threat- 
ened, and  at  the  same  time  accused  of  appropriating  to  himself  some  of 
the  money  that  he  had  collected  by  his  traffic.  .  He  was  disowned  and 
disgraced;  his  spirit  was  broken;  sickness  soon  came  and  death  did  not 
linger.  His  humiliation  excited  the  pity  of  his  former  antagonist,  and 
Luther  recalled  in  his  old  age,  doubtless  with  pleasure,  that  he  wrote  a 
letter  of  sympathy  and  encouragement  to  Tetzel,  after  he  had  been  cast 
off  by  those  who  had  used  him  to  their  own  advantage.  He  died  August 
19,  1519,  perchance,  as  Luther  said,  "killed  by  a  troubled  conscience  and 
the  anger  of  the  Pope."1 

A  part  of  the  agreement  with  Luther  was  that  he  should  submit  to  the 
judgment  of  some  German  prelate.  Miltitz  chose  the  Archbishop  of 
Trier,  and  at  an  interview  with  Cajetan  at  Coblentz  summoned  Luther 
to  appear  before  the  Archbishop  in  that  city.  Luther  did  not  think  it 
safe  to  obey  the  summons,  and  no  effort  was  made  to  force  him  to  do  so. 
The  summons  was  given  early  in  May.2  Not  long  afterwards  the  whole 
matter  was  postponed  to  the  next  meeting  of  the  Diet,  which  happened 
to  be  the  famous  Diet  at  Worms. 

With  the  Elector's  increased  importance,  there  came  increased  re- 
sponsibility; and  if  he  needed  it  there  came  also  increased  moral  support 
in  the  course  that  he  was  pursuing  toward  Luther.  It  was  given  by  a 
letter  from  Erasmus.  This  letter  was  not  the  beginning  of  Erasmus's 
connection  with  Luther,  but  it  was  his  first  positive  and  effective  inter- 
ference in  his  affairs.  He  was  seventeen  years  older  than  Luther,  and 
was  then,  in  1519,  fifty-three  years  old,  in  the  height  of  his  literary  ac- 
tivity and  recognized  as  the  highest  representative  and  most  efficient 

1  Sed  conscientia  et  indignations  papae  forte  accubuit.     Preface,   LOL,    1:   21. 
In  his  Wider  Hans  Wurst,  Luther  says  of  Tetzel:  "A  preaching  monk,  by  name 
Johannes  Detzel,  a  boisterous  fellow,  whom  Duke  Frederick  had  formerly  lib- 
erated from  the  sack  at  Innsbruck,  for  Maximilian  had  condemned  him  to  be 
drowned  in  the  Inn  (you  may  well  suppose  on  account  of  his  great  virtue) ....  And 
Duke  Frederick  caused  him  to  remember  that,  when  he  began  to  abuse  the  Witten- 
bergers;  also  he  freely  confessed  it."     (LDS,  26:  68.)     Miltitz  is  also  a  witness 
against  him.    After  the  hearing  at  Leipzig,  he  wrote  to  Spalatin  that  Tetzel  had 
been  guilty  not  only  of  shameless  preaching,  but  of  embezzlement  and  extrava- 
gance, auch  hat  er  ij  kinder.     Loscher,  3:  20;  Walch,  15:  716. 

2  Walch,  15:  724. 


THE  LEIPZIG  DISPUTATION  87 

promoter  of  literature  in  Europe.1  Living  at  a  time  when  polite  learning 
occupied  a  place  of  eminence  that  it  had  never  held  before,  and  has  never 
held  since,  his  was  a  unique  position.  Dr.  Samuel  Johnson  was  not  more 
autocrat  in  The  Club  in  London  than  Erasmus  was  in  the  whole  of  Europe. 
No  man  of  letters,  from  Cicero  down,  and  not  Cicero  himself,  has  ever 
been  so  looked  up  to,  consulted,  applauded,  followed.  Young  men  of 
intellectual  aspirations  regarded  it  as  the  highest  good  fortune  to  meet 
him  and  to  be  noticed  by;  him;  and  many  of  them  received  from  him  a 
stimulus  and  inspiration  to  their  whole  life.  He  was  honored  and  pen- 
sioned by  nearly  every  sovereign  in  Europe,  and  if  he  did  not  occupy  high 
positions  in  Church  and  State,  it  was  because  he  preferred  a  private 
station  and  personal  freedom.  There  was  no  man  then  living  whose 
opinion  on  a  question  of  philosophy  or  theology  would  .carry  with  it  so 
great  weight — it  would  be  taken,  not  as  his  opinion  merely,  but  as  the 
judgment  of  the  new  age  of  enlightenment.  As  Rome  spoke  for  the 
whole  Church,  so  Erasmus  spoke  for  all  scholars. 

He  had  just  published,  or  was  just  about  to  publish,  his  edition  of 
Suetonius's  "Lives  of  the  Caesars,"  and  he  had  dedicated  it  to  the  Elector 
of  Saxony.  This  furnished  the  occasion  for  the  letter.  It  was  not  un- 
usual for  such  dedications  to  be  paid  for  in  gold — Erasmus  himself  had 
often  been  paid  in  that  way — but  in  this  case  all  that  he  asked  was  that 
the  El'ector  would  continue  to  favor  the  better  learning,  then,  as  he  said, 
"everywhere  flourishing  in  our  Germany."  The  glory  that  the  Elector 
might  gain  in  this  way,  Erasmus  thought,  was  equal  to  that  which  his 
ancestors  formerly  won  in  war.  The  Elector's  favor  might  help  in  two 
ways:  first,  it  might  give  direct  encouragement  to  the  friends  of  learning; 
and  second,  it  might  check  the  opposition  of  its  enemies,  who  lacked  only 
the  occasion  for  mischief.  They  were  "haters  of  the  muses,"  "tyrants 
of  the  old  ignorance. "  The  recent  publications  of  Luther  had  given  the 
occasion  they  needed;  they  were  accusing  him  of  heresy,  and  pretending 
that  the  new  learning  was  the  inspirer  of  his  heresies,  and  that  the  friends 
of  learning  were  his  supporters  and  protectors.  In  this  they  were  influ- 
enced, not  by  hatred  of  heresy  so  much,  as  by  their  hatred  of  learning. 

It  has  been  suggested  that  Erasmus  had  a  motive  hi  saying  that  he 
did  not  know  Luther,  and  that  Luther  did  not  know  him;  and  that  he 
could  not,  therefore,  be  suspected  of  favoring  him  from  motives  of  friend- 
ship. The  suggestion  is  uncharitable  and  probably  unjust.  There  are 
no  marks  of  timidity  or  half-heartedness  in  the  letter.  In  the  very  next 
sentence  he  says  that  those  who  did  know  Luther,  knew  him  to  be  a  man 
of  pure  life,  and  as  far  as  possible  removed  from  all  suspicion  of  avarice  and 
ambition.  He  thought  it  incompatible  with  the  gentleness  that  theolo- 

1  Luther  at  this  time  calls  him  Literarum  princeps,     LOL,  3:  13. 


88  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

gians  ought  to  have  to  rage  so  unmercifully  against  the  name  and  fame 
of  an  upright  man  who  had  given  no  just  cause  of  offense.  The  whole 
drift  of  the  letter  was  to  impress  it  upon  the  Elector  that  Luther's  enemies 
were  condemning  him  from  interested  motives,  from  hatred  of  him  per- 
sonally, and  also  from  hatred  of  the  new  learning  and  free  discussion,  of 
which  Luther  was  a  representative.  Erasmus  concludes  by  saying, 
"While  it  is  the  duty  of  your  highness  to  protect  the  Christian  religion, 
it  is  also  your  duty,  inasmuch  as  you  are  the  guardian  of  justice,  not  to 
permit  an  innocent  man,  under  the  pretense  of  piety,  to  be  given  up  to 
the  impiety  of  others."  He  did  not  know  what  was  thought  of  Luther 
at  Rome,  but  where  he  was  Luther's  books  were  most  eagerly  read  by  all 
the  best  people,  although  he  himself  had  not  read  them  for  lack  of  time.1 

Erasmus's  letter  was  dated  April  14,  1519.  On  the  14th  of  May  the 
Elector  replied:  "I  rejoice,"  he  said,  "that  the  Lutheran  cause  is  not 
condemned  by  the  learned,  and  that  with  you  Dr.  Martin's  writings  are 
most  eagerly  read  by  the  best  men. "  He  goes  on  to  say :  "  By  the  help  of 
God  I  will  not  permit  any  innocent  man  to  be  given  up  to  the  impiety 
of  those  who  are  seeking  their  own  good"  hi  his  ruin.2 

Things  seemed  to  be  going  well  with  Luther,  and  hi  some  respects 
they  were  going  well;  the  suspension  of  active  measures  against  him 
brought  quiet,  and  in  the  quiet  his  writings  Were  circulated  and  read. 
All  this  was  good,  and,  as  things  turned  out,  only  good.  But  in  this 
quiet  there  was  danger.  If  it  had  continued,  the  interest  hi  the  Lutheran 
controversy  must  have  waned,  and  after  a  while  ecclesiastical  matters 
would  have  settled  down  in  their  old  channel,  and  what  became  the 
"Lutheran  tragedy"  might  have  turned  out  to  be  only  the  "Lutheran 
incident. "  This  result  was  favored  by  political  conditions.  As  a  rule, 
when  an  important  matter  has  once  thoroughly  possessed  the  public 
mind,  it  does  not  give  place  until  it  has  gone  on  to  its  logical  conclusion — 
the  exception  occurs  when  it  is  thrust  aside  by  some  rival  interest.  In 
this  particular  case  the  rival  interest  was  furnished  by  the  death  of  the 
Emperor  and  the  questions  connected  with  the  choice  of  a  successor 
The  affairs  of  the  Empire  might  have  supplanted  the  affairs  of  the  Church, 
and  when  Europe  had  once  become  involved  in  the  great  national  con- 
tests that  soon  followed,  there  would  have  been  no  time  or  inclination 
to  return  to  Luther's  affairs.  Luther  was  right:  "If  let  alone,  the 
thing  would  bleed  to  death";  and  it  seemed  to  be  in  danger  of  being  left 

1  LOL,  2:  457.    Toward  the  close  of  his  letter  he  says:  Quid  istic  de  Lutherio  sen- 
Hunt,  neacio.     Certe  hie  video  libras  illius  ab  optimis  quibusque  cupidissime  legi, 
guamquain  mihi  nondum  vacamt  evohere.     Ib.  459.     It  was  the  habit  of  Erasmus 
to  profess  that  he  had  not  read  the  writings  of  Luther,  with  which,  nevertheless, 
he  shows  considerable  acquaintance. 

2  LOL,  2:  460. 


THE  LEIPZIG  DISPUTATION  89 

alone.  For  the  present,  at  least,  Luther  was  safe.  He  was  under  the 
strong  protection  of  the  Elector,  and  the  Pope  was  too  busy  to  care  for 
him — his  principal  enemy  could  not  disturb  him,  and  he  himself  was 
pledged  to  peace.  Let  the  peace  last  and  the  tide  would  ebb,  the  oppor- 
tunity would  pass. 

But  the  peace  did  not  last.  There  were  two  men  who  could  not 
easily  keep  quiet :  the  one  was  John  Eck,  the  other  was  Luther  himself. 
Eck,  it  is  said,  provoked  Luther  to  a  renewal  of  the  controversy,  but 
Luther  was  very  willing  to  be  provoked.  His  promise  of  silence  was  only 
conditional:  he  was  to  be  silent  if  the  other  side  was  silent.  It  may  be 
that  he  really  did  not  consider  the  promise  or  offer  as  binding;  for,  even 
while  engaging  to  be  silent,  he  was  already  preparing  for  a  renewal  of 
the  discussion,  and  the  train  leading  to  it  had  long  been  laid.  He  and 
Eck  had  met  in  Augsburg  in  October,  1518,  and  it  was  there  arranged 
that  Eck  and  Garlstadt  should  meet  and  fight  out  their  old  battle.  In 
the  following  January,  in  ostensible  agreement  with  this  plan,  Eck 
published  a  schedule  of  the  propositions  that  he  wished  to  discuss.  There 
were  thirteen  of  them,  six  referring  to  matters  between  him  and  Carlstadt, 
but  the  remaining  seven,  and  especially  the  thirteenth,  were  evidently 
aimed  at  Luther.  The  latter  felt  it,  and  early  hi  February  published  a 
letter  to  Garlstadt  in  which  he  complained  of  Eck's  theses  and  begged 
Carlstadt  to  secure  him  the  privilege  of  taking  part  in  the  coming  dispu- 
tation. Eck  justified  his  schedule:  it  was  Luther's  doctrine  that  he 
objected  to,  and  he  had  no  controversy  with  Carlstadt  except  as  Luther's 
champion  and  defender.1  As  the  two  men  were  one  in  their  teaching, 
he  did  not  think  that  they  ought  to  be  separated  in  the  disputation. 
His  main  business  was  with  Luther,  and  yet  he  would  not  permit  Carl- 
stadt to  be  shoved  aside;  he  would  dispute  with  both.  His  propositions 
against  Garlstadt  were  no  pretense,  and  he  could  point  out  with  his 
finger  the  places  where  Luther  taught  the  things  that  he  alleged  against 
him.2  Of  course  Luther  replied,  answering  Eck's  thirteen  propositions 
with  thirteen  opposing  propositions. 

All  these  things  took  place  in  the  first  quarter  of  the  year  1519,  and 
during  the  time  when  Miltitz's  plan  for  peace  was  getting  itself  tried. 
Luther  was  making  his  assuring  address  to  the  people,  begging  them  to 
think  kindly  of  the  Roman  Church  and  to  have  no  thought  of  separating 
from  it.  At  the  same  time  he  was  saying  to  his  friend  Scheurl  (February 
20th):  "God  is  in  the  midst  of  the  gods.  He  knows  what  it  is  that  he 
wishes  to  bring  out  of  this  tragedy.  Neither  Eck  nor  I  is  serving  his 

1  LOL,  3 :  19.     Cum  autem  Carlstadius  sit  propugnator  tuus,  tu  vero  principalis 
existas,  etc.     Eck  to  Luther. 

2  Non  autem  existimavi  hos  in  disputatione  separandos,  qui  in  eandam  sententiam 
manibus  et  pedibus  conspirassent.     Ib.  6. 


90  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

own  purpose  in  this  thing.  I  have  often  said  that  heretofore  I  have  been 
playing  with  the  matter,  now  at  length  I  shall  act  in  earnest  against  the 
Roman  Pontiff  land  the  Roman  arrogance."1  A  little  later  he  wrote 
to  Spalatin,  March  5th,  that  "it  was  never  in  his  heart  to  wish  to  be 
separated  from  the  papal  see."  The  13th  of  March  he  said,  "I  am 
studying  the  decretals  of  the  Popes,  preparing  for  my  disputation,  and 
(I  whisper  it  in  your  ear)  I  do  not  know  whether  the  Pope  is  Antichrist 
or  his  apostle."2  It  was  only  ten  days  before  that  he  had  written  his 
respectful,  submissive  letter  to  the  Pope. 

What  shall  we  think  of  this?  It  would  be  easy  to  say  that  Luther  was 
acting  a  double  part,  playing  fast  and  loose,  blowing  hot  and  cold.  It 
would  be  more  charitable,  and  probably  truer,  to  say  that  his  conduct  was 
that  of  a  strong  man  agitated  by  different  motives;  now  reverence  for 
long  established  order  and  duly  constituted  authority,  now  love  of  truth; 
at  one  time  shrinking  from  the  confusion  and  trouble  that  he  saw  just 
before  him,  at  another  conscious  that  he  was  working  the  work  of  God. 
One  point  is  clear:  he  saw  no  inconsistency  between  utmost  hatred  of 
the  Pope  and  most  reverent  obedience  to  him.  He  said,  in  the  letter  to 
Spalatin  already  quoted,  "  I  am  content  that  the  Pope  should  be  called  and 
be  Lord  of  all.  What  is  that  to  me,  who  know  that  even  the  Turk  is  to 
be  honored  and  endured  for  the  sake  of  the  power?"  He  would  submit 
to  the  most  tyrannical  rule,  as  submitting  to  God,  who  permits,  even 
ordains,  that  rule.  We  must  interpret  his  conduct  from  his  own  point 
of  view.  Let  us  remember  that  few  men  have  been  subjected  to  such  a 
trial  as  that  through  which  he  was  passing;  also,  let  us  believe,  if  we  can, 
that  he  was  seeking  the  right  way,  but  was  not  yet  certain  which  was  the 
right  way;  that  his  was  the  hesitation  and  vacillation  of  the  eagle  before 
he  has  finally  chosen  the  direction  of  his  flight.  But  we  can  hardly  say 
that  he  was  the  docile,  peace-loving,  engagement-keeping  man,  provoked 
into  controversy,  dragged  unwillingly  into  this  disputation  by  Eck, 
which  he  himself  afterwards  claimed  to  be,  and  as  has  been  so  often  assert- 
ed by  others  in  his  defense. 

JDe  Wette,  1:  230. 

*  De  Wette,  1:  239.  In  his  letter  of  March  3  Luther  says:  "Ah,  holy  father, 
before  God,  before  the  whole  creation,  I  affirm  that  I  have  never  once  had  it  in 
my  thought  to  weaken  or  shake  the  authority  of  the  holy  See.  I  fully  admit  that 
the  power  of  the  Roman  Church  is  superior  to  all  things  under  God;  neither  in 
heaven  nor  on  earth  is  there  aught  above  it,  our  Lord  Jesus  excepted.  Let  no 
credit  be  given  by  your  holiness  to  any  who  seek  to  represent  Luther  to  you  in 
any  other  light."  (LOL,  2:  452;  Michelet,  55.)  In  still  more  violent  contrast 
is  his  letter  to  Leo,  dated  May  30,  1518:  "Most  holy  father,  I  prostrate  myself 
at  the  feet  of  your  clemency,  with  all  that  I  have  and  am.  Bid  me  live  or  slay  me, 
call,  recall,  disapprove,  as  it  pleases  you;  I  acknowledge  in  your  voice  thje  voice 
of  Christ  speaking  and  presiding  in  you.  If  I  am  worthy  of  death  I  shall  not 
refuse  to  die;  for  'the  earth  is  the  Lord's  and  the  fulness  thereof,  who  is  blessed 
forevermore,  Amen.'  "  (LOL,  2:  132;  Michelet,  34-36.) 


THE  LEIPZIG  DISPUTATION  91 

Carlstadt  suggested  that  the  proposed  meeting  should  take  place  at 
Erfurt  or  Leipzig;  Eck  chose  Leipzig,  wisely  for  his  cause.  Many  thought 
the  disputation  would  do  more  harm  than  good.  The  extreme  papal  party 
could  not  admit  that  there  was  now  anything  to  be  discussed;  to  allow  the 
supremacy  of  the  Pope  to  be  called  in  question  was  almost  heresy,  and 
as  to  the  question  of  indulgences  that  had  been  decided  by  the  Pope's 
Brief.  There  was  nothing  to  gain  therefore  by  a  disputation,  and  some- 
thing might  be  lost;  accordingly,  the  bishop  of  Merseburg,  chancellor 
of  the  university  of  Leipzig,  and  sjome  of  the  professors,  did  what  they 
could  to  prevent  the  meeting.  On  the  other  hand,  it  was  favored  by  the 
Elector  of  Saxony,  and  also  by  George,  Duke  of  Saxony.  The  latter, 
afterwards  to  be  an  earnest  opponent  of  the  new  movement,  and  to 
be  cordially  hated  by  Luther,  saw  no  harm  to  come  of  discussion,  but 
rather  good.  The  Elector,  as  from  the  beginning,  was  favorable  to 
anything  that  might  lead  to  fuller  knowledge.  The  Duke  had  not  con- 
sented that  Luther  should  take  part  in  the  discussion,  but  he  gave  a  safe 
conduct  to  Carlstadt  and  "those  who  might  accompany  him."  This 
opened  the  way  for  Luther  to  go  to  Leipzig;  and,  once  there,  he  might 
hope  to  be  permitted  to  dispute.1 

In  view  of  the  interest  that  the  disputation  had  awakened,  and  the 
number  of  persons  who  might  wish  to  attend  and  witness  it,  the  Duke 
had  a  large  hall  in  the  castle  of  Pleissenberg  fitted  up  as  the  place  of 
meeting.  Whoever  wished  to  be  witness  of  a  rare  conflict,  so  the  announce- 
ment ran,  let  him  take  care  to  be  present.  And  indeed  a  most  interesting 
discussion  might  well  be  expected.  The  subjects  to  be  discussed  were 
important,  and  the  least  known  of  the  disputants  was  already  widely  dis- 
tinguished. Carlstadt,  or  to  give  his  full  name,  Andrew  Rudolf  Bodenstein 
of  Carlstadt,  was  a  man  of  learning  and  ability.  In  early  life — we  might 
say  all  his  life — he  was  ready  to  receive  new  impressions,  and  as  he  grew 
older  his  impetuosity  rather  increased,  and  continued  until  years  of  disap- 
pointment and  not  a  little  hardship  quieted  him  down.  He  was  three 
years  older  than  Luther,  not  less  learned,  had  been  longer  a  professor, 
and  was  mentioned  with  him  and  Melanchthon  as  attracting  by  his  fame 
a  great  concourse  of  students  to  Wittenberg.  But  while  the  two  were 

1  "Here  Eck  came  to  me  in  the  tavern  saying  that  he  had  heard  I  had  given 
up  the  disputation.  I  replied,  'How  can  I  dispute  when  I  cannot  get  a  safe  con- 
duct from  Duke  George?'  He  said,  'If  I  am  not  allowed  to  dispute  with  you, 
I  do  not  care  to  dispute  with  Carlstadt.  It  is  on  your  account  that  I  am  here. 
What  if  I  procure  a  safe  conduct  for  you?  Will  you  not  dispute  with  me? '  '  Get 
it,'  I  said,  'and  so  it  shall  be.'  He  went  away  and  presently  a  safe  conduct  was 
given  me  also  and  an  opportunity  made  for  me  to  dispute."  Pref.,  LOL,  1:  19. 
Queen  Victoria  asked  me,  says  Macaulay,  about  Merle  D'Aubign£'s  work,  and  I 
answered  that  the  writer  was  a  strong  partisan  and  too.  much  of  a  colorist.  ("Life 
a /id  Letters,"  2:  247).  If  the  reader  will  take  the  trouble  to  compare  the 
i  i  ;m  Luther's  Preface  with  D'Aubifrn6's  translation  of  it,  bk.  v,  ch.  3,  of 
tory,  he  will  see  how  just  Macaulay 's  criticism  is,  in  one  case  at  least. 


92  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

mentioned  together,  Carlstadt  was  beginning  to  be  overshadowed  by  his 
greater  colleague.  As  one  of  the  principals  in  the  disputation,  he  had 
precedence  among  the  Wittenbergers,  but  when  in  Leipzig  his  carriage 
wheel  came  off  and  he  was  tumbled  out  in  the  dirt,  his  party  felt  relief 
that  the  accident  had  not  happened  to  Luther.  It  was  thought  to  be  a 
bad  omen  for  Andrew. 

Eck  already  had  a  splendid  reputation.1  He  was  three  years  younger 
than  his  principal  opponent.  He  had  studied  at  Heidelberg,  and  took 
his  Master's  degree  at  Tubingen  at  fourteen.  He  further  pursued  his 
studies  at  Cologne  and  Freiburg.  From  1510  he  had  been  professor  of 
theology  in  the  university  of  Ingolstadt  in  Bavaria,  having  like  Luther 
been  previously  a  teacher  of  philosophy.  He  claimed  for  himself  that 
he  had  read  the  whole  Bible,  the  prophets  excepted,  before  he  was  ten 
years  old.2  From  his  youth  he  had  exercised  his  genius  for  disputing 
in  the  universities  of  Italy  and  Germany.3  His  ample  learning,  retentive 
memory,  animated  gestures,  strong,  clear  voice,  and  bold,  aggressive 
manner,  all  enhanced  his  skill  in  his  art  and  made  of  him  a  most  formidable 
antagonist.  It  was  a  time  when  the  joy  of  disputation  was  like  the  joy 
of  battle,  and  victors  achieved  honor  only  less  coveted  than  that  which 
lured  the  stainless  Bayard  to  deeds  of  daring.  Victory  in  such  a  con- 
test was  almost  equal  to  winning  the  Marathon  race  to-day,  and  the 
triumph  of  its  champion  brought  nearly  as  much  fame  to  a  university 
then  as  the  championship  in  football  brings  to  an  American  university 
of  our  day.  The  men  of  the  sixteenth  century  knew  no  better  than  to 
think  that  mind  ought  to  count  for  more  than  muscle  in  a  university; 
we  of  the  wiser  twentieth  century  have  changed  all  that.  If,  then,  Eck 
was  eager  for  the  contest  with  Luther,  we  might  pardon  him;  if  he  should 
win,  the  victory  would  be  great,  and  he  might  be  victorious!  Besides, 
we  cannot  say  that  his  only  motive  in  seeking  this  controversy  was  the 
hope  of  a  personal  triumph.  There  are  so  many  motives  that  influence 
men:  the  best  of  us  do  not  rise  entirely  above  the  earth,  and  the  most 
worldly  and  ambitious  of  men  may  not  be  altogether  earthy.  Eck  was 

1  Myconius  calls  Eck  a  filthy  (unflatig)  man,  and  says  of  him,  "from  youth  up 
he  had  followed  an  adulterous,  unclean  and  drunken  life."    (Hist.  Ref.,  p.  29.)    This 
is  a  sample  of  the  reckless  slanders  of  the  time.      Myconius  also  calls  Cochlseus 
a  bad,  passionate  cockerel  of  a  man  (bos,  zornig  Gockelmannlein,  ib.,  p.  36).    This 
because  he  wrote  "wicked,  lying  books"  against  Luther.     We  can  measure  the 
formidable  character  of  an  opponent  of  Luther  by  the  epithets  that  Myconius 
uses  to  describe  him.    This  temper  makes  the  opinion  of  the  first  Lutheran  historian 
absolutely  worthless;  his  witness  to  fact  is  sometimes  valuable. 

2  During  the  discussion  Luther  insinuated  that  Eck  was  ignorant  of  the  Scrip- 
tures.    Eck  resented  it.     It  was  the  height  of  impudence,   Cum  puer  nundum 
decennis,  demptis  prophetis,  bibliam  totam  legerem.    He  added:  "But  it  is  nothing 
to  the  point  how  much  a  man  has  read."    LOL,  3:  104;  Seitz,  124. 

3  Absit  mihi  gloriari,  si  in  aliquibus  Studiis  vel  Germaniae  vel  Italiae  exercendi 
ingenii  causa  juvenis  disputavi.     Eck  to  Luther.     LOL,  3:  7. 


THE  LEIPZIG  DISPUTATION  93 

probably  a  sincere,  though  not  in  some  respects  an  extreme,  Romanist; 
and  he  doubtless  persuaded  himself  that  he  sought  the  glory  of  the 
Church  and  the  promotion  of  the  truth,  in  seeking  this  contest. 

This  disputation  is  one  of  the  most  famous  in  history,  and  as  much 
perhaps  as  anything  that  occurred  influenced  the  course  of  subsequent 
events.  It  brought  the  two  parties  into  close  and  sharp  contact,  and 
permits  us  to  see  what  were  the  views  of  each,  and  by  what  arguments 
they  defended  them.  In  giving  an  account  of  it,  we  need  not  follow  the 
speakers  step  by  step;  we  have  the  whole  case  before  us,  and  it  will  be 
enough  to  indicate  the  material  points  made,  without  reference  to  the 
particular  address  in  which  they  were  made.1 

Eck  spoke  first.  Before  beginning  the  debate  he  noticed  Luther's 
statement  that  he  had  been  forced  into  the  discussion  of  the  particular 
subject  then  before  them.  "The  reverend  father,"  he  said,  "declares 
that  on  account  of  his  reverence  for  the  Pope  he  would  gladly  have 
avoided  this  subject,  if  he  had  not  been  dragged  into  it  by  my  proposition. 
But  he  will  remember  that  my  proposition  would  not  have  been  necessary, 
if  he  himself  had  not  denied  that  the  Roman  Pontiff  was  superior  to  others 
before  the  times  of  Pope  Sylvester  (A.  D.  314-335).  It  is  vain,  therefore, 
for  him  to  attempt  to  make  me  responsible  for  what  he  himself  furnished 
the  occasion."  He  continued:  "Reverend  father,  your  thirteenth  prop- 
osition,2 in  opposition  to  mine,  affirms  that  the  Roman  Church  is 
superior  to  others  only  according  to  the  worthless  decretals  Roman  Pon- 
tiffs issued  within  the  last  four  hundred  years  of  approved  history." 
Luther  had  added,  "and  the  decree  of  the  council  of  Nicaea,  the  holiest 
of  all, "  but  Eck  omitted  these  words. 

In  opposition  to  this  Eck  said:  "There  is  a  monarchy  and  principate 
in  the  Church  by  divine  right,  and  by  the  institution  of  Christ,  and  the 
text  of  Scripture  and  approved  history  is  not  against  it.  For  the  Church 
militant  (which  is  one  body,  according  to  the  teachings  of  St.  Paul)  has 
been  made  and  instituted  according  to  the  image  of  the  Church  trium- 

1  The  account  of  the  disputation  is  made  from  the  report  prepared  at  the  time 
by  notaries,  to  be  submitted  to  the  judgment  of  the  universities  of  Paris  and 
Erfurt.     It  is  to  be  found  in  Loscher's  collection,  3:    292   seq.  \   in  LOL,  vol.  3; 
and  a  critical  edition  of  the  text,  from  previously  unused  sources  was  published 
in  Leipzig,  in  1903,  by  Otto  Seitz,  Der  authentische  Text  der  Leipziger  Disputa- 
tion.    References  are  given  on  the  most  important  points  discussed  to  both  the 
latter  authorities. 

2  The  thirteenth  propositions  of  the  two  were  as  follows:  Luther:  "That  the 
Roman  Church  is  superior  to  all  others  is  proved  by  worthless  decretals  of  the 
Roman  Pontiff  put  forth  within  the  last  four  hundred  years,  against  which  are 
all  approved  histories  for  eleven  hundred  years,  the  text  of  the  Holy  Scripture, 
and  the  decree  of  the  council  of  Nicsea,   the  holiest  of  all  Councils."     Eck:  "We 
deny  that  the  Roman  Church  has  not  been  superior  to  the  other  churches  before 
the  time  of  Sylvester.     But  we  have  always  recognized  that  he  who  held  the 
see  and  faith  of  the  blessed  Peter  is  the  successor  of  Peter  and  the  vicar-general 
of  Christ." 


94  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

phant;  in  which  there  is  one  monarchy,  all  the  heavenly  intelligences  being 
disposed  in  order,  ascending  to  one,  God.  Such  an  arrangement  Christ 
must  have  instituted  on  earth,  for  it  is  confessed  that  the  Son  does  noth- 
ing except  what  he  has  seen  the  Father  do  (John  V).  Wherefore  he  is 
not  of  heaven  who  refuses  to  be  subject  to  the  head  on  earth,  just  as  he  is 
not  of  heaven,  but  of  Lucifer,  who  will  not  be  subject  to  God." 

All  these  things,  said  Eck,  can  be  fully  proved  by  that  pious  soul, 
St.  Dionysius  the  Areopagite,  in  his  book  on  the  ecclesiastical  hierarchy, 
when  he  says,  "For  our  hierarchy  disposed  in  order  handed  down  from 
God,  has  been  conformed  to  the  celestial  hierarchy."1  So  also  Gregory 
of  Nazianzum  hi  his  apologetics  says,  "The  most  holy  mysteries  are 
celebrated  according  to  the  likeness  of  the  celestial  usage,  by  which  we 
have  fellowship  on  earth  with  the  heavenly  orders. "  For  how  monstrous 
it  would  be  for  the  Church  to  be  without  a  head,  as  almost  all  the  heretics 
desire  (as  St.  Cyprian  intimates  to  Rogatian  and  Pupian)2  that  having 
weakened  the  head  they  may  teach  their  errors  and  poison  men's  minds 
with  impunity.  And  this  was  the  principal  reason  (with  others  annexed) 
why  the  university  of  Paris  condemned  John  Torriacencis  for  denying 
the  primacy  of  the  Roman  Church.  So  also  it  was  the  error  of  Wiclif 
that  the  Church  of  Rome  is  not  superior  to  others  by  the  law  of  the  Gospel. 

At  this  point  Luther  interrupted  and  said:  "When  the  Doctor  argues 
that  there  is  certainly  a  universal  head  of  the  Church  he  does  well.  And 
if  anyone  has  privately  agreed  with  him  to  maintain  the  opposite,  let 
such  a  one  show  himself;  it  is  no  business  of  mine. " 

Eck  resumed:  "The  reverend  father3  says  that  it  is  no  business  of 
his  to  defend  the  contrary  of  the  proposition  that  I  was  endeavoring  to 
prove,  namely,  that  by  divine  right  there  is  a  monarchy  in  the  Church 
militant  as  hi  the  Church  triumphant.  In  this  I  praise  him,  as  he  agrees 
with  St.  John  in  the  Apocalypse:  'I  saw  the  holy  city  descending/  etc. 
But  coming  nearer  to  the  point,  if  the  Church  militant  was  not  without  a 
monarch,  I  would  wish  to  know  what  other  monarch  there  was  or  ever 
had  been  but  the  bishop  of  Rome,  or  what  other  first  See  but  the  See  of 
Peter  and  his  successors.  For  Cyprian  says  in  his  second  letter  to 
Cornelius,  the  Roman  bishop,  against  the  Novatians  who  were  craftily 

1  LOL,  29:  26.     He  afterwards  quotes  Bernard  more  fully — I  think  it  is  said 
in  a  figure,  that  fjust   as   the   seraphim   and  cherubim  and  the  rest,  angels  and 
archangels,  are  under  one  head,  God,  so  here  also,  under  one  head,  the  Pope, 
are  primates  or  patriarchs,  archbishops,  bishops,  presbyters,  abbots,  etc.     Eck 
says:  "Who  does  not  know  that  this  ecclesiastical  hierarchy,  according  to  Bernard, 
has  been  instituted  by  Christ,  and  as  God  in  heaven  is  head,  so  the  Pope  is  head 
in  the  Church  militant?"     LOL,  3:  34;  Seitz,  63. 

2  The  letters  referred  to  are  probably  64  and  68,  ANF,  5:  365,  372.     Eck  prob- 
ably used  the  word  innuit  advisedly,  as  Cyprian  in  the  letters  does  not  expressly 
say  what  he  is  made  to  say — he  merely  intimates  it. 

3  Luther  usually  speaks  of  Eck  as  the  egregius  Dominus  Doctor;  Eck  calls  Luther 
reverendus  pater. 


THE  LEIPZIG  DISPUTATION  95 

going  to  Rome:  'Besides  these  things,  having  appointed  a  bishop  for 
themselves,  they  dare  to  cross  the  sea,  and  to  bear  letters  from  schismatic 
and  profane  persons  to  the  throne  of  Peter  and  to  the  chief  Church 
whence  sacerdotal  unity  arose.'  Likewise  Jerome  testifies  against 
the  Lucif erians :  '  The  safety  of  the  church  depends  on  the  dignity  of  the 
chief  priests,  to  whom  if  a  definite  and  preeminent  power  had  not  been 
given,  there  would  have  been  as  many  schisms  in  the  Church  as  there 
are  priests.' 

"That  Jerome  means  the  bishop  of  Rome  when  he  says  'chief  priest' 
is  clear  from  two  of  his  letters  to  Pope  Damasus,  almost  every  word  of 
which  bears  on  the  point,  but  for  the  sake  of  brevity  I  mention  only  a 
few:  'I  talk  with  the  successor  of  the  fisherman  and  disciple  of  Christ.' 
'Seeking  no  other  reward  but  Christ,  I  am  one  with  your  blessedness 
that  is,  with  the  throne  of  Peter,'  and  lower  down,  'Whoever  does  not 
gather  with  you  scatters  abroad.'  From  all  which  (Eck  continues), 
any  good  Christian  concludes  that  sacerdotal  unity  flows  from  the  Roman 
Pontiff,  and  that  the  Roman  Church  has  always  been  the  chief  Church, 
superior  to  all  others,  and  that  it  is  the  Rock  on  which,  as  Jerome  says, 
the  Church  is  founded.  Let  the  reverend  father  name  another  monarch 
of  the  Church  in  early  times." 

Luther  began  his  reply:  "I  readily  confess  that  there  is  a  monarchy  in 
the  Church  militant.  The  head,  however,  is  not  a  man  but  Christ  him- 
self." In  proof  of  this  he  went  at  once  to  the  Scriptures.  His  first 
quotation  was  from  Paul's  First  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians:  "He  must 
reign  imt.il  he  hath  put  all  enemies  under  his  feet,"  and  "Then  cometh 
the  end,  when  he  shall  deliver  up  the  kingdom  to  God,  even  the  Father. " 
This,  said  Luther,  Augustine  explains  as  referring  the  kingdom  of  Christ 
to  this  present  time,  so  that  Christ,  the  head  of  the  Church,  should  deliver 
up  us,  who  are  his  kingdom.  His  next  quotation  was  from  the  Gospel 
of  Matthew,  "Behold  I  am  with  you  always,  even  to  the  end  of  the 
world."  Likewise,  he  said,  in  the  ninth  chapter  of  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles,  Paul  heard  from  heaven,  "Saul,  Saul,  why  persecutest  thou 
me?  "  where,  as  Augustine  again  says,  the  head  was  speaking  for  the  mem- 
bers. "Wherefore,"  he  continued,  "they  are  not  to  be  listened  to  who 
thrust  Christ  out  of  the  Church  militant  into  the  Church  triumphant. " 

He  then  turned  his  attention  to  the  authorities  quoted  by  Eck.  The 
first,  Paul,  hi  the  fourth  chapter  of  Ephesians,  speaks  of  Christ  as  the 
head  of  the  Church,  not  of  the  Church  triumphant,  but  of  the  Church 
militant.  Also  in  the  third  chapter  of  First  Corinthians,  Paul  asks 
"What  is  Apollos?  What  is  Cephas?  What  is  Paul?  Is  Christ  divided?" 
Manifestly  forbidding  any  other  head  but  Christ.  Eck's  second  author- 
ity, the  passage  from  the  Gospel  of  John,  says  nothing  either  of  the  Church 


96  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

militant  or  of  the  Church  triumphant,  but  in  the  judgment  of  all  the 
learned  teaches  the  equality  of  the  Son  with  the  Father.  As  to  the  quo- 
tation from  Dionysius,  that  was  not  against  him,  for,  said  he,  we  do  not 
deny  that  there  is  an  ecclesiastical  hierarchy;  we  do  not  dispute  about 
this  hierarchy,  but  the  head  of  this  monarchy.1  It  would  indeed,  as 
Eck  had  said,  be  a  monstrous  thing  for  the  Church  to  be  without  a 
head.  But  the  learned  Doctor  himself  can  give  it  no  other  head  but 
Christ.  "For  if  its  head,  as  he  calls  the  Roman  Pontiff,  being  a  man, 
dies,  then  the  Church  is  without  a  head.  But  if  Christ  is  the  head  in 
the  meantime,  until  another  Pope  is  elected,  it  is  not  less  a  monstrous 
thing  that  Christ  should  succeed  a  dead  and  give  place  to  a  living  Pope. 
Eck  thought  this  a  ridiculous  quibble,  not  worthy  of  the  occasion.  He 
referred  to  it  several  times.  He  explained  that  when  a  Pope  dies,  the 
Cardinals  are  in  his  place.  But  how  was  it,  asked  Luther,  before  there 
were  any  Cardinals?  Eck  did  not  give  a  satisfactory  answer.  Luther 
afterwards  said,  "My  meaning  is  this:  If  the  Church  is  not  without 
a  head  when  the  Pope  is  dead,  it  would  not  be  without  a  head  if 
there  were  no  Pope."2 

The  passage  from  Cyprian,  who  blamed  the  heretics  for  weakening  the 
head,  that  they  might  teach  their  own  error  with  impunity,  Luther 
thought  not  at  all  in  Eck's  favor.  For  Cyprian  was  not  speaking  of  the 
Roman  head,  but  of  any  head,  of  any  episcopate.  If,  he  said,  the  very 
learned  Doctor  will  stand  by  the  authority  of  Cyprian,  we  shall  settle 
the  dispute  this  very  hour.  For  Cyprian,  in  addressing  Pope  Cornelius, 
never  calls  him  anything  but  his  very  dear  brother.  And  in  writing  of 
the  election  and  ordination  of  bishops,  which  he  does  in  many  letters, 
he  proves  from  the  Scriptures  that  they  belong  to  the  people  and  to  two 
or  three  of  the  neighboring  bishops,  just  as  was  determined  in  the  most 
holy  Council  of  Nicaea  (canon  4).  Moreover,  the  same  blessed  martyr, 
as  quoted  by  Augustine  hi  the  second  chapter  of  his  book  on  baptism, 
says:  "No  one  of  us  has  constituted  himself  bishop,  or  by  a  tyrannical 
error  has  forced  his  colleagues  to  the  necessity  of  obeying  him,  for  every 
bishop  is  free  to  follow  his  own  will,  and  just  as  he  cannot  judge  another, 
so  he  cannot  be  judged  by  another:  all  of  us  wait  the  judgment  of  our 

1  In  reply  to  this  Eck  said,  "Let  the  reverend  father,  I  pray,  read  a  little  more 
attentively  the  unapproachable  Father  Bernard  'On  Consideration.'  "  He 
quotes  a  passage  from  Bernard  affirming  the  likeness  of  the  earthly  to  the  heavenly 
hierarchy:  "So  here  under  the  chief  Pontiff,  are  primates  or  patriarchs,  arch- 
bishops, bishops,  abbots  and  the  rest."  Bernard  adds  that  is  not  to  be  lightly 
esteemed  that  has  God  as  its  author  and  takes  its  origin  from  heaven.  LOL,  3 : 34. 
Luther  says  in  reply,  "I  venerate  St.  Bernard,  and  dp  not  despise  his  opinion; 
but  in  controversy  the  genuine  and  proper  sense  of  Scripture  ought  to  be  taken." 
/&.  39;  Seitz,  67. 

*  Mea  ratio  hoc  voluit:  si  ecclesia  non  est  acephala  mortuo  papa,  nee  acephala  nullo 
papa.  He  adds,  Transeo  illud  de  Cardinalibus,  quia  omnibus  notum,  quando  co- 
eperint.  LOL,  3:  39;  Seitz,  68. 


THE  LEIPZIG  DISPUTATION  97 

Lord  Jesus  Christ."  I  most  willingly  admit,  as  Cyprian  says,  that 
sacerdotal  unity  sprang  from  the  throne  of  Peter,  but  only  so  far  as  con- 
cerns the  Western  Church.  For  indeed,  the  Roman  Chureh  itself  sprang 
from  Jerusalem,  which  is  properly  the  mother  of  all  the  Churches. 

The  last  authority  adduced  by  Eck  was  Jerome.  The  authority  of 
Jerome  had  not  been  well  introduced  by  the  learned  Doctor,  said  Luther, 
even  if  Jerome's  authority  were  in  all  respects  true;  for  the  Doctor  was 
seeking  to  show  that  the  monarchical  power  of  the  Church  of  Rome  was 
instituted  by  Christ  and  by  divine  right.  This  the  words  of  Jerome  do 
not  prove.  He  says,  "To  whom,  if  a  certain  preeminent  power  be  not 
given  by  all  there  will  be  as  many  schisms  as  there  are  priests."  "Be 
given, "  he  says,  that  is,  it  might  be  done  by  human  right,  all  the  others 
faithfully  consenting  to  it.  I  do  not  object  to  this.1  If  the  faithful  of 
the  whole  world  should  agree  that  the  bishop  of  Rome  or  of  Paris  or  of 
Magdeburg  should  be  first  and  highest  bishop,  the  monarchy  should 
be  granted  him  out  of  reverence  for  the  whole  Church  so  agreeing.  But 
this  has  not  been  done  heretofore,  is  not  now  done,  and  never  will  be 
done,  since  even  down  to  our  time  the  Greek  Church  has  not  consented 
to  it,  and  that  Church  has  never  been  considered  heretical. 

Jerome  was  an  important  witness  and  Luther  would  make  the  most  of 
him.  He  continued,  That  I  have  rightly  given  the  opinion  of  Jerome  I  will 
prove  by  his  letter  to  Evagrius,  hi  which  he  says:  "Wherever  there  is  a 
bishop,  whether  at  Rome  or  Constantinople,  or  Regius  or  Alexandria, 
they  are  of  the  same  merit  and  of  the  same  priesthood.  The  power  of 
riches  and  the  weakness  of  poverty  make  them  higher  or  lower,  but  all 
are  successors  of  the  apostles."  In  his  commentary  on  the  Epistle  to 
Titus  again  he  says:  "A  presbyter  is  the  same  as  a  bishop;  and  before,  by 
the  instigation  of  the  devil,  jealousies  arose  in  religion  and  it  was  said 
among  the  people,  'I  am  of  Paul,  and  I  am  of  Cephas/  the  Churches  were 
ruled  by  the  common  advice  of  the  presbyters.  But  after  each  one  began 
to  think  that  those  whom  he  had  baptized  belonged  to  him,  it  was  decreed 
in  the  whole  world  that  one  chosen  from  the  presbyters  should  be  over 
the  rest."  And  having  cited  authorities  from  Scripture  to  sustain  him, 
he  concludes:  "Therefore,  just  as  the  presbyters  know  that  it  is  by  the 
custom  of  the  Church  that  they  are  subject  to  him  who  is  placed  over 
them,  so  the  bishops  may  know  that  rather  by  custom  than  by  ordination 
of  the  Lord  they  are  greater  than  the  presbyters. " 

Luther  closed  his  address  by  quoting  a  canon  of  an  African  synod: 

1  In  reply  to  this  quotation  from  Jerome,  Eck  said:  "This  I  say,  that  it  appears 
to  me  (always  saving  better  judgment)  that  there  was  not  such  confusion  in  the 
primitive  Church,  that  a  bishop  should  not  be  distinguished  from  a  presbyter. 
In  proof  of  which  thing,  I  bring  forward  St.  Dionysius,  who  was  older  than  Jerome." 
LOL,  3:  37;  Seitz,  66. 


98  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

"Let  not  the  bishop  of  the  first  see  be  called  the  prince  of  the  priests,  or 
the  high  priest,  or  any  such  thing;  but  only  bishop  of  the  first  see. 
And  let  not  the  bishop  of  Rome  be  called  the  universal  bishop."1  If, 
said  he,  sole  authority  belongs  by  divine  right  to  the  bishop  of  Rome, 
all  these  things  are  heretical,  which  it  were  rash  to  affirm. 

Eck's  first  address  has  been  given  almost  entire;  Luther's  with  slight 
abridgement,  and  in  general  more  freely.  If  Luther's  address  seems  more 
logical  and  forcible,  it  is  because  it  was  so.  Eck  was  conscious  of  the 
impression  that  his  adversary  was  making  and  began  his  rejoinder  with 
an  apology.  "The  reverend  father,"  said  he,  "has  descended  into  the 
arena  sufficiently  instructed.  Your  most  illustrious  Dominations  will 
pardon  Eck,  if  occupied  now  for  a  long  time  with  other  things,  he  has 
not  been  able  to  bring  together  so  many  things,  so  roundly  and  accurately, 
as  the  reverend  father  has  now  done."  He  added,  no  doubt  with  the 
proper  smile  and  gesture,  "I  come  to  dispute,  not  to  issue  a  book." 
Luther's  quotations  from  Cyprian  needed  explanation.  Especially 
was  the  fact  that  he  familiarly  addressed  the  Pope  as  his  dear  and  dearest 
brother  to  be  explained.  Eck  did  not  think  it  important.  No  one,  he 
said,  is  ignorant  that  the  apostles  were  brethren,  and  yet  Peter,  just  as 
his  successor  Cornelius,  was  the  head  of  the  apostles,  the  apex  and  vertex, 
according  to  St.  Dionysius.  He  recurred  to  the  matter  later,  and  thought 
there  must  be  some  mistake  about  it.  "As  to  Cyprian's  calling  Cornelius 
brother,  he  said,  I  think  it  was  the  notion  of  the  compiler,  and  not  of 
Cyprian;  for  if  we  read  the  letters  of  the  holy  bishops  we  will  find  that 
-at  times  magnified  and  flattering  modes  of  address  were  used.  They  call 
each  other  beatissimus,  sanctissimus,"  etc.2 

Luther  was  willing  to  grant  to  Peter  a  primacy  of  honors.  He  said: 
"It  is  an  evident  mistake  that  he  had  power  over  the  apostles.  This, 
however,  I  freely  confess,  that  Peter  was  first  in  the  number  of  the 
apostles,  and  that  a  prerogative  of  honor  is  due  him,  but  not  of  power: 
the  apostles  were  equally  chosen  and  received  equal  power.  If  the  very 
learned  Doctor,  he  added,  can  prove  that  Pe^er  ever  ordained  any  one 
of  the  apostles,  yea,  one  of  the  seventy  disciples,  or  that  he  ever  sent 
forth  one  of  them,  I  grant  him  everything  and  confess  myself  beaten. 
If,  on  the  other  hand,  I  shall  prove  that  not  all  the  apostles  together 

1The  second  synod  of  Hippo,  A.  D.  393,  can.  25.  Hefele,  "History  of  Coun- 
cils," 2:  399,  Eng.  ed. 

2  Eck  would  escape  a  difficulty  by  alleging  a  corrupted  text.  He  did  not  know, 
or  else  did  not  remember,  that  it  was  much  after  Cyprian's  time  before  bishops 
began  to  address  each  other  as  "your  holiness,"  "your  charity,"  "your  emi- 
nence." These  titles  were  borrowed  from  the  court  of  Constantino,  and  only 
became  the  fashion  after  the  Church  was  becoming  rich  by  the  patronage  of  the 
State.  Cyprian's  letters  are  now  accessible  to  all  in  an  English  translation  (ANF, 
vol.  5),  and  anyone  may  satisfy  himself  that  it  was  that  Father's  constant  prac- 
tice to  use  toward  the  bishops  of  Rome  the  language  of  an  equal  to  an  equal. 


THE  LEIPZIG  DISPUTATION  99 

could  send  forth  one  apostle,  let  him  grant  me  that  Peter  had  no  power 
over  the  other  apostles.  He  offered  in  proof  that  the  apostles  could  not 
ordain  Matthias  (Acts  i),  and  that  Paul  and  Barnabas  could  only 
be  sent  forth  by  the  Holy  Spirit  (Acts  xiii).  Eck  did  not  accept  the 
challenge*  He  said:  "He  asks  me  to  prove  that  Peter  ordained  any  of 
the  apostles,  but  this  is  not  pertinent  to  our  business.  For  we  do  not 
inquire  who  ordained  one  or  another,  but  who  received  the  primacy 
over  others  from  the  Lord  Jesus."1 

In  his  first  address  Luther  made  the  point  that  the  Roman  Church 
was  not  all  the  Church,  that  the  Greeks  had  never  submitted  to  the 
Pope  or  acknowledged  the  primacy.  Christ  had  said,  "On  this  Rock  will 
I  build  my  Church."  He  did  not  mean  a  part  of  the  Church,  but  the 
whole;  and  he  could  not  therefore  have  referred  to  the  Pope,  the  head  of 
the  Roman  Church,  as  the  head  of  all  the  Church.  The  reference  to  the 
Greeks  aroused  Eck's  indignation;  he  said,  "I  beseech  the  reverend  father 
to  be  silent  and  not  to  insult  us  with  Greeks  and  Orientals,  who  separat- 
ing from  the  Roman  Church  became  at  the  same  time  exiles  from  the 
Christian  faith. "  Luther  answered,  "I  rather  pray  Doctor  Eck  to  spare 
so  many  thousands  of  saints,  since  up  to  our  times  the  Greek  Church  has 
endured,  and  undoubtedly  it  will  endure;  for  Christ  did  not  receive  from 
the  Father  the  middle  of  the  Roman  Empire,  but  the  whole  world  for 
a  possession  and  an  inheritance." 

On  the  second  day  Eck  came  to  what  he  called  the  principal  thing, 
being  about  to  prove,  he  said,  that  the  primacy  belongs  to  the  Roman 
Church  by  divine  right,  and  that  Peter  was  considered  the  head  of  the 
Church  by  Christ.  Now  first  he  noticed  the  famous  proof-text,  "Thou 
art  Peter,"  where,  he  said,  according  to  the  ordinary  interpretation, 
Christ  grants  power  to  Peter  that  he  might  invite  us  to  unity;  for  he  con- 
stituted Peter  the  prince  of  the  apostles,  that  there  might  be  for  the 
Church  one  principal  vicar  of  Christ,  to  whom  the  members  might  go  if, 
perchance,  they  should  dispute  among  themselves;  for  if  there  were  differ- 
ent heads  the  bond  of  unity  would  be  broken.  As  to  the  meaning  of 
the  passage,  he  quoted  Augustine,  Chrysostom  and  Cyprian,  passing 
by  men  of  later  time,  Bede,  Bernard  and  the  like.  Then  more  in  detail 
he  quoted  from  certain  papal  decretals.  Luther  in  reply  claimed  that 
some  of  Eck's  authorities  were  on  his  side:  Augustine  particularly 
had  taught  that  the  Rock  on  which  the  Church  was  built  was  not  Peter, 
but  Christ.  He  had  indeed  taught  differently  at  different  times,  but  he 
was  oftener  with  him  than  with  Eck.  "But, "  he  added,  "even  if  Augus- 
tine and  all  the  Fathers  have  understood  Peter  to  be  the  Rock  of  founda- 
tion, single-handed  I  would  oppose  them  with  the  authority  of  the  apostle, 

1  LOL,  3:  40,  45;  Seitz,  68,  73. 


100  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

who  says,  'Other  foundation  can  no  man  lay  than  that  which  is  laid, 
Jesus  Christ.'"1  Eck  referred  to  this  afterwards  in  a  way  that  told 
strongly  against  Luther. 

Also  hi  the  second  day's  discussion  Eck  referred  to  Hus  and  the  Bohem- 
ians. He  held  firmly  to  the  doctrine  of  the  infallibility  of  a  general  coun- 
cil, and  from  his  point  of  view  it  was  much  in  his  favor  that  the  Council 
of  Constance2  had  condemned  Wiclif  and  Hus,  who  taught  that  the  Pope's 
power  was  derived  from  the  Emperor.  "I  ask  the  reverend  father's 
pardon,"  said  Eck,  "if  I  hate  the  schismatic  Bohemians,  and  regard  them 
as  the  enemies  of  the  Church,  and  if  I  am  reminded  of  them  in  this  dis- 
cussion. For  his  thesis  and  the  things  he  has  said  here  to-day  to  prove 
that  the  primacy  of  the  Church  is  only  of  human  origin,  in  my  poor  and 
weak  judgment  are  much  like  the  views  of  the  Bohemians,  and  as  the 
report  is,  they  are  very  grateful  to  him. " 

This  cut  Luther  to  the  quick.  It  was,  he  replied,  an  insult  to  him,  and 
he  promptly  resented  it  and  declared  his  condemnation  of  the  Bohemians, 
chiefly,  however,  because  they  were  schismatics.  "It  has  never  pleased 
me,  and  will  never  please  me,  that  the  Bohemians  wickedly  came  to  a 
schism,  that  on  their  own  authority  they  separated  from  our  unity, 
even  if  right  should  be  on  their  side.  For  the  supreme  divine  law  is 
charity  and  unity  of  the  Spirit.  "3  But  Luther  was  clearly  disconcerted, 
and  not  knowing  what  else  to  do,  made  a  counter-charge  against  Eck 
that  he  had  been  unjust  to  the  Greeks.  Eck  had  said  that  in  denying 
the  Pope's  authority  the  Greeks  had  excluded  themselves  from  the 
Church  and  salvation  and  were  heretics.  To  exclude  so  many  thousand 
saints  Luther  thought  was  as  detestable  a  blasphemy  as  could  be  spoken. 
In  speaking  of  the  Greeks  his  opponent  had  classed  them  all  together, 
those  of  the  earliest  and  those  of  the  latest  times,  without  discrimination. 
Eck  in  reply  likened  him  to  an  unskilled  cook,  mixing  incompatible  things, 
Greek  saints  and  Greek  heretics  in  the  same  class,  that  he  might  thereby 
defend  the  errors  of  heretics.  This  still  further  angered  Luther,  who 

1  Luther  added,  "Besides,  if  the  Church,  against  which  the  gates  of  hell  should 
not  prevail,  had  been  founded  on  Peter,  it  would  have  fallen  (when  Peter  fell), 
at  the  voice  of  the  maid  that  kept  the  door."     Eck  answered  that  Luther  had 
not  noticed  that  the  "I  will  build"  is  in  the  future  tense.     When  Peter  fell  Christ 
had  not  yet  given  the  keys,  he  had  only  promised  them  (LOL,  3:  60,  66;  Seitz, 
85,  91).     Luther  afterwards  reminded  Eck  that  Peter  had  received  the  keys 
when    he    prevaricated    and   was   blamed   by   Paul   at   Antioch.     LOL,  3:   73; 
Seitz,  97. 

2  Eck:  "He  asks  me  to  prove  that  a  council  cannot  err.     I  do  not  know  whether 
he  wishes  to  insinuate  by  this  a  suspicion  against  the  Council  of  Constance.    But 
this  I  say  to  the  reverend  Father,  'If  you  believe  that  a  legitimate  council  errs 
and  has  erred,  you  are  to  me  as  a  heathen  and  a  publican.'  "     LOL,  3:  110;  Seitz, 
129. 

3  The  notaries  add,  D.  Martinus  petiit  Eecium  ne  velit  impingere  tantam  con- 
tumeliam,  ui  eum  Bohemiam  faceret,  quia  sibi  semper  inviti  fuissent  ideo  quod  ab 
imitate  dissentiant.     LOL,  3:  61;  Seitz,  86. 


THE  LEIPZIG  DISPUTATION: 


interrupted  and  complained  that  he  had  spoken  falsely  and  impudently 
of  him.1 

Eck  too,  became  angry  and  did  not  spare  Luther.  "The  reverend 
father,"  he  said,  "glories  that  he  speaks  according  to  the  divine  law. 
Relying  on  his  own  understanding  he  flouts  me  because  I  follow  the  inter- 
pretation of  the  ancients.  He  insinuates  that  he  will  not  follow  Augustine 
and  others  who  have  said  that  Peter  is  the  Rock,  because  their  teaching 
is  contradictory.  I  say  in  reply,  how  does  he  dare  to  believe  that  so 
great  a  Father  has  taught  contradictory  things  in  the  same  book,  in  the 
same  chapter,  and  in  the  same  sentence?  I  leave  others  to  judge  how 
modestly  and  humbly  he  spoke  when  he  promised  by  himself  alone  to 
stand  up  in  opposition  to  so  many  Fathers.  This  is  indeed  the  true 
Bohemian  style,  to  profess  to  understand  the  Scriptures  better  than 
Popes,  councils,  doctors  and  universities,  and  that  although  the  Holy 
Spirit  has  never  deserted  the  Church.  Wonderful  it  would  be  if  God 
has  kept  the  truth  concealed  from  so  many  saints  and  martyrs,  waiting 
for  the  coming  of  the  reverend  father!"2 

Luther  had  been  identified  with  the  Bohemians,  and  was  in  a  manner 
compelled  to  accept  the  situation.  He  had  been  surprised  and  worried,3 
but  he  put  on  a  bold  front:  he  claimed  that  the  Bohemians  had  been 
badly  treated;  they  had  been  pursued  and  harassed  as  enemies,  whereas 
they  ought  to  have  been  dealt  with  kindly,  and  the  effort  should  have  been 
made  to  conciliate  and  win  them.  Then,  too,  some  of  Hus's  doctrines 
were  most  Christian  and  evangelical.  He  did  not  care  whether  Hus  and 
Wiclif  had  taught  that  it  is  not  necessary  to  salvation  to  believe  that  the 
Church  of  Rome  is  superior  to  other  Churches.  He  knew  that  Gregory 
Nazianzen,  Basil  the  Great,  Epiphanius,  and  the  other  Greek  bishops 
and  saints  had  not  believed  it.  No  faithful  Christian,  he  said,  can  be 
forced  beyond  the  sacred  Scripture.4  In  defending  Hus,  Luther  was  bring- 
ing reproach  upon  the  Council  of  Constance  that  had  condemned  him. 
Eck  quoted  Augustine  to  show  that  to  cast  doubt  on  the  infallibility  of 
a  council  was  to  weaken  the  foundations  of  truth.  Luther  said  that  the 

1  Protestor  cor  am  vobis  omnibus  et  publice,  quod  egregius  D.  D.  hac  mendaciter 
et  impudenter  de  me  loquitur.     LOL,  3:  64;  Seitz,  89. 

2  Luther  said,  "This  is  not  to  dispute,  but  to  stir  up  unfriendly  feelings  against 
me."     LOL,  3:  73;  Seitz,  97. 

3  Later  Luther  became  much  less  sensitive  about  being  called  a  follower  of  Hus. 
He  writes  to  Spalatin:  Ego  imprudens  hucusque  omnia  Johannis  Huss  docui  et 
tenui;  docuit  eadem  imprudentia  et  Johannes  Staupitz;  breviter  sumus  omnes  Hussitae 
ignorantes;  denique  Paulus  et  Augustinus  ad  verbum  sunt  Hussitae.     Vide  monstra, 
quaeso,  in  quae  venimus  sine  duce  et  doctore  Bohemico.     February,  1520.     De  Wette, 
1:425. 

4  Nee  potest  fidelis  Christianus  cogi  ultra  sacram  Scripturam,  quae  est  proprie 
jus  divinum,  nisi  accesserit  nova  et  probata  revelatio.     Imo  ex  jure  divino  prohibemur 
credere  nisi  quod  sit  probatum,  vel  per  scripturam  divinam,  vel  per  manifestam  reve- 
lationem.     LOL,  3:  62;  Seitz,  87. 


i02  TEE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

reference  was  unhappy,  as  Augustine  was  speaking  of  the  infallibility 
of  the  word  of  God,  and  a  council  as  only  the  creature  of  that  word.  To 
put  a  council  and  the  word  of  God  on  the  same  level  was  a  disparagement 
of  that  word,  since  it  was  conceded  that  a  council  may  err.1 

This  Bohemian  incident  was  the  most  exciting  thing  in  the  whole  dis- 
putation. Luther  had  foreseen  that  he  might  be  forced  into  a  position 
in  which  public  sentiment  would  be  turned  against  him.  Anywhere,  and 
with  the  greatest  prudence,  he  might  arouse  strong  resentments  by  deny- 
ing the  infallibility  of  the  Pope  and  council;  and  anywhere  it  would  be 
much  against  him  to  identify  him  with  the  Bohemians.  But  in  Leipzig 
such  a  thing  was  particularly  exasperating.  The  university  at  Leipzig 
had  a  grievance.  A  little  more  than  a  hundred  years  before  that  time, 
Hus,  then  the  most  active  spirit  in  Prag,  had  caused  a  division  in  the 
university  there.  Four  nations  were  at  that  time  represented  in  that 
university:  Bohemians,  Bavarians,  Saxons  and  Poles;  and  the  Bohem- 
ians having  only  one  vote,  could  be  outvoted  in  their  own  university. 
Hus  brought  it  about  that  Bohemia  should  have  three  votes,  instead  of 
one,  and  the  other  nations  one  vote  instead  of  three.  The  question 
leading  to  the  change  concerned  the  doctrines  of  Wiclif,  Hus  favoring 
and  the  other  nations  opposing  them.  The  conclusion  of  the  matter 
was  that  the  other  nations  withdrew  from  Prag,  five  thousand  students 
and  teachers,  and  established  two  universities:  the  Bavarians  the  uni- 
versity of  Ingolstadt,2  Eck's  institution,  and  the  Saxons  the  university 
of  Leipzig.  The  memories  of  that  bitter  controversy  had  scarcely  been 
dimmed,  and,  besides,  there  was  still  a  fresh  recollection  of  the  long  and 
bloody  Husite  wars.  When,  therefore,  Luther  defended  and  apologized 
for  the  Bohemians,  the  people  of  Leipzig  could  not  hear  him  with  patience; 
he  seemed  the  friend  of  heretics,  and  himself  a  heretic.3  He  keenly  felt 
the  hostility  of  the  audience,  and  interrupted  the  discussion  to  address 
the  people  in  German,  and  remove,  if  possible,  their  antagonism  to  him. 
The  case  was  doubtless  worse  with  him,  because  in  other  places,  and 
especially  in  his  own  home,  he  had  spoken  almost  entirely  to  friends  and 
admirers,  and  this  was  a  new  experience  for  him. 

All  along,  but  now  more  than  ever,  Eck  had  the  advantage  of  a  favor- 

1  Luther  mentioned  some  universally  accepted  doctrines  taught  by  Hus.     Eck 
he  thought  ought  to  allow  him  to  believe  that  the  Council  of  Constance  had  not 
really  condemned  these,  but  that  they  had  been  interpolated  by  some  impostor! 
LOL,  3:  75;  Seitz,  99.     Later  he  said  that  councils  had  erred,  and  might  err  again, 
especially  in  things  not  pertaining  to  faith;  and  that  a  council  had  no  authority 
for  establishing  new  articles  of  faith,  otherwise  we  would  have  as  many  articles 
in  our  creed  as  there  are  opinions  of  men.     LOL,  3:  98;  Seitz,  119. 

2  Founded  in  1472,  the  university  of  Ingolstadt  was  united  to  that  of  Munich 
in  1826.     The  old  building  is  now  a  gymnasium  for  boys. 

3  In  a  letter  to  Hoogstraten,  Eck  said  that  by  defending  the  Bohemians,  Luther 
alarmed  many  who  at  first  favored  him,  and  drove  them  from  him ;  quo  temerario 
errore  multos  terruit  et  discedere  fecit,  qui  primo  ei  favebant.     LOL,  3:  476. 


THE  LEIPZIG  DISPUTATION  103 

ing  audience.  In  other  respects,  however,  he  had  serious  difficulties  to 
contend  with.  The  words,  "I  say  unto  thee,  Thou  art  Peter,"  etc., 
seemed  upon  their  face  to  favor  his  cause;  Luther  had  to  find  some  other 
interpretation  than  that  which  first  appeared.  But  in  all  other  cases, 
Eck's  proof-texts  did  not  at  once  and  clearly  seem  to  be  pertinent — he 
had  to  interpret  into  them  the  meaning  that  he  wished  them  to  bear, 
and  in  this  he  was  not  always  successful.  He  insisted  much  on  the  com- 
mand, "Feed  my  sheep";  in  this  he  thought  was  conferred  on  Peter  his 
office  as  shepherd  or  pastor  of  the  whole  Church.  Luther's  interpretation 
of  it  was  far  more  plausible.  Again,  he  thought  the  primacy  given  when 
the  Lord  foretold  Peter's  fall,  and  directed  him  after  his  conversion  to 
confirm  his  brethren,  the  weaker  being  confirmed  by  the  stronger,  the 
lower  by  the  higher.  This  was  not  so  openly  manifest  that  it  would  be 
accepted  without  proof,  and  no  very  satisfactory  proof  was  found.1 
It  also  seemed  to  him  proof  of  Peter's  primacy  that  he  was  named  first 
in  the  list  of  apostles,  that  he  was  sent  to  pay  the  tribute  money  for 
himself  and  the  Lord  (Matt.  17:27);  .that  he  was  commanded  to 
follow  Christ,  not  simply  (as  Eck  interprets)  in  the  manner  of  his  death, 
but  also  in  the  order  of  magistracy,  and  that  he  was  commanded  to  walk 
on  the  sea,  where,  according  to  St.  Bernard,  the  sea  means  the  world, 
and  the  walking  on  it  that  all  the  world  was  to  be  subject  to  Peter.2 
That  all  these  passages  mean  what  Eck  and  some  of  the  Fathers  thought 
them  to  mean  would  hardly  occur  to  the  uninstructed  reader. 

While  Eck's  Scripture  proofs  needed  interpretation,  Luther's  on  the 
other  hand  generally  seemed  at  first  view  to  mean  what  Luther  said  they 
meant;  and  Eck's  interpretations  of  them  could  not  always  be  heard 
with  a  serious  face.  The  very  fact  that  so  many  of  them  taxed  his 
ingenuity,  could  not  but  be  felt  against  him.  When  reminded  that 
St.  Paul  rebuked  the  Corinthians  for  making  parties  and  exalting  one 
apostle  over  another,  "  Very  true, "  he  said,  "but  the  apostle  was  condemn- 
ing personal  ambition,  and  the  passage  is  nothing  against  the  primacy. " 
When  told  that  Paul  claimed  to  be  the  apostle  to  the  gentiles,  as  Peter 

1  Eck  did  not  give  proof,  but  authority.     Luther  said  that  there  were  two  ways  of 
interpreting.     First,  Peter,  if  you  love  me,  that  is  if  you  seek  your  own  and  do 
all  things  to  please  your  flatterers,  feed  my  sheep,  that  is,  be  first  and  lord  of  all. 
This  sense,  he  said  was  not  in  his  codex.     The  second  way  was,  If  you  love  me, 
that  is,  if  you  deny  yourself,  if  you  lay  down  your  life  for  me,  if  you  despise  all 
dignity  and  love  nothing  besides  me  (as  Augustine  happily  expounds  it),  Feed 
my  sheep,  that  is,  teach,  preach  the  word,  exhort,  pray,  set  a  good  example.     For 
the  Greek  word  in  this  place  does  not  mean  simply  to  rule  and  to  feed,  but  sweetly 
and  gently  to  care  for  and  to  do  all  things,  that  nothing  may  be  wanting  to  the 
sheep.     LOL,  3:  94,  95;  Seitz,  116-118. 

2  See  the  summing  up  of  the  8th  of  July.     LOL,  3:  121.     "As  to  what  St.  Ber- 
nard says  of  Peter's  walking  on  the  sea,  Luther  saya  that  it  has  nothing  to  do 
with  the  primacy.     I  wonder  that  he  can  say  this  if  he  read  Bernard,  for  Bernard 
certainly  intends  to  prove  from  this  that  Pope  Eugenuis  had  the  primacy  over  the 
rest,  and  that  the  whole  world  ought  to  be  subject  to  him."    /&.,  124;  Seitz,  139-141. 


104  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

was  to  the  Jews,  "True,"  he  replied,  "but  Paul  was  there  only  stating  a 
fact  and  was  not  at  all  denying  the  primacy."  When  told  that  Paul, 
in  mentioning  the  officers  of  the  Church,  fails  to  make  mention  of  the 
Pope,  "True  enough,"  says  Eck,  "but  the  fact  that  he  says  nothing 
about  the  primacy  in  that  place  does  not  prove  that  there  was  no  pri- 
macy." The  apostle  John  in  describing  the  New  Jerusalem  mentions 
twelve  foundation  stones.  "Very  true,  but  he  does  not  say  that  Peter 
was  not,  in  another  sense,  the  one  foundation. "  The  Pope  claimed  the 
right  to  ordain  bishops;  if  Peter  was  Pope  he  ought  to  have  exercised 
that  right;  but  there  is  no  proof  that  he  ordained  the  other  apostles.  In  the 
case  of  Matthias,  the  new  apostle,  neither  Peter  nor  all  the  apostles 
could  choose  him;  he  was  chosen  by  the  Lord.  But  Eck  had  no  doubt 
that  Peter  ordained  him  and  all  the  rest.  It  was  a  plain  case;  they  were 
bishops;  Christ  did  not  ordain  them,  and  they  did  not  ordain  themselves; 
therefore  they  must  have  been  ordained  by  Peter,  whom  Christ  had 
appointed  universal  bishop,  when  he  said,  Feed  my  sheep.1  Paul  men- 
tioned that  at  Jerusalem  he  had  not  yielded  to  Peter  and  James;  that 
whatever  they  were,  it  was  nothing  to  him,  since  God  is  no  respecter 
of  persons.  This,  Eck  thought,  was  nothing  against  the  primacy  of 
Peter.  What  Paul  meant  was  that  Peter  and  James  were  men  of  humble 
origin,  without  learning  or  culture,  and  that  God,  in  choosing  such  men 
to  the  apostleship,  showed  that  he  was  not  influenced  by  men's  outward 
condition.  Luther  made  some  movement,  perhaps  smiled,  when  Eck 
said  this.  Eck's  happy  facility  of  conjecturing  made  him  say  that  if  he 
had  the  right  of  supposing  he  might  suppose  anything;  he  might  suppose 
that  the  apostle  John  was  a  chancellor,  probably  alluding  to  Eck's  office 
as  vice-chancellor  of  his  university. 

Eck  was  at  a  decided  disadvantage  in  having  undertaken  to  prove 
that  the  Pope  is  Pope  jure  divino.  This  was  a  proposition  that  many  of 
his  audience  accepted  without  proof;  they  needed  no  authorities  or  ar- 
guments to  convince  them  of  it.  It  might  seem,  therefore,  that  the  bur- 
den of  proof  was  on  him  who  would  deny  it;  that  it  was  Luther's  business 
to  prove  that  the  Pope  was  not  Pope  jure  divino,  and  that  Eck  took  the 
burden  that  properly  belonged  to  his  opponent.  But  a  proper  under- 
standing of  the  case  will  convince  us  that  Eck  had  no  choice. 

The  Papacy  was  a  very  old  institution;  for  many  years,  centuries  rather, 
the  Pope  had  held  the  first  place  in  the  Western  Church — no  true  Catholic 
thought  of  disputing  his  supremacy  or  of  inquiring  how  he  obtained  it. 

1  In  this  the  Doctors  agree,  that  at  the  Supper  Christ  made  his  disciples  priests 
in  giving  them  power  over  the  true  body  of  Christ,  saying,  This  do  in  remem- 
brance of  me.  And  then,  on  the  day  of  the  Resurrection,  he  gave  them  power 
over  the  mystical  body:  Receive  ye  the  Holy  Spirit.  But  the  primacy  and  prelacy 
of  the  whole  Church  he  promised  Peter:  Feed  my  sheep,  as  Gregory,  Chrysostom 
and  other  Fathers  testify.  LOL,  3:  83;  Seitz,  106. 


THE  LEIPZIG  DISPUTATION  105 

In  one  of  the  passages  of  the  discussion,  while  they  were  all  dining  at 
the  Duke's  palace,  the  Duke  said  to  the  disputants,  "Whether  the  Roman 
bishop  is  Pope  jure  divino  or  jure  humano,  he  is  Pope.  "l  The  inference 
was  that  the  whole  discussion  was  a  dispute  about  words  and  of  little 
practical  importance.  The  Duke  expressed  the  opinion  of  many  who 
looked  at  the  question  superficially;  and,  in  point  of  fact,  it  was  only  in 
recent  times  that  any  felt  it  necessary  to  claim  for  the  Pope  a  divine 
right  to  his  position.  So  long  as  he  ruled  according  to  the  canons,  or 
exercised  those  functions  that  law  "or  custom  had  assigned  to  him,  his 
power  was  unquestioned;  but  when  he  began  to  claim  the  right  to  make 
laws,  to  forgive  sins,  to  remit  penalties  both  on  earth  and  hi  Purgatory, 
to  dispense  the  spiritual  treasures  of  the  Church,  to  wield  not  an  ecclesias- 
tical but  a  divine  power,  it  was  inevitable  that  men  should  ask  where  he 
got  so  great  authority.  If  he  ruled  only  by  the  right  that  the  Church 
gave  him,  he  was  exceeding  his  powers.  If  Christ  himself  had  not  com- 
mitted such  authority  to  him  he  was  a  usurper  and  an  impostor — such 
things  as  the  Pope  claimed  could  be  innocently  claimed  only  by  a  man 
who  held  a  divine  commission.  The  case  was  such  that  the  Pope  must 
recede  from  his  claims,  or  else  show  that  he  acted  by  divine  right. 

It  was  this  state  of  things  that  forced  Eck  to  undertake  the  office  of 
affirmant  rather  than  respondent  in  the  discussion.2  It  was  with  the 
divine  right  of  the  Papacy  as  it  afterwards  was  with  the  divine  right 
of  kings,  and  as  it  has  been  with  other  human  conceptions:  An  insti- 
tution is  created  to  meet  some  social,  political  or  religious  need;  hi  time 
its  origin  is  forgotten;  it  is  supposed  to  have  been  from  the  first,  and  to 
be  part  of  the  general  constitution  of  things.  The  circumstances  change 
so  that  it  is  no  longer  useful;  it  may  even  be  oppressive;  or  it  gets  to  itself 
new  functions,  claims  new  powers,  and  at  last  grows  into  a  position  of 
antagonism  to  some  fundamental  right  or  conception.  Then  comes  a 
revolt,  and  the  institution  is  swept  away  or  forced  back  into  its  legiti- 
mate sphere  and  limitations.  In  the  case  of  the  Papacy  there  were  two 
causes  of  revolt:  first,  the  necessity  for  such  an  institution  had  almost, 
if  not  entirely,  passed  away;  second,  the  necessities  or  ambition  of  the 
Popes  had  put  on  it  a  weight  too  great  to  be  borne. 

Four  days  were  spent  in  discussing  the  position  of  the  Pope  and  the 
Roman  Church.  Other  questions  followed,  Purgatory,  penance,  indul- 

1  Princeps  Dux  Georgius  prudentissime  ambos  nos  verberans  dixit:  Sive  hoc  sit 
jure  divino,  sive  humano,  Romanus  Pontifex  est  et  manet  summus  Pontifex.     LOL, 
3:  241.     Luther  again  ment^ns  in  his  Preface  what  the  Duke  said  (LOL,  1:  20), 
but  interprets  it  somewhat  differently.     In  1545  he  thought  that  the  Duke  would 
have  approved  Eck  and  blamed  him  if  he  had  not  been  influenced  by  his  argu- 
ments.    In  1519  he  remembered  that  the  Duke  had  chided  both,  verberans. 

2  In  the  latter  part  of  the  disputation  the  parties  changed  places:  Luther  af- 
firmed and  Eck  denied. 


106  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

gences.  But  in  discussing  these,  no  new  points  were  developed.  Luther 
afterwards  said  that  he  himself  hardly  knew  in  what  way  he  and  Eck 
differed  about  Purgatory  and  penance.1  They  were  nearly  agreed  about 
indulgences.  Eck  thought,  indeed,  that  they  ought  not  to  be  despised, 
but  at  the  same  time  no  one  ought  to  trust  in  them.  If,  said  Luther,  the 
indulgence  sellers  had  said  this,  "no  one  even  to  this  day  would  have 
heard  my  name."  And  if  the  people  had  known  that  they  were  not  to 
trust  hi  indulgences,  the  indulgence  sellers  would  have  died  of  starva- 
tion.2 

Neither  party  was  altogether  pleased  with  the  manner  of  discussion. 
Eck  did  not  like  it  that  what  was  said  had  to  be  taken  down  by  notaries, 
and  that  in  order  to  do  this  he  had  to  crush  the  impetuosity  and  swing  of 
his  eloquence.  The  Lutheran  party  were  put  to  a  disadvantage  by  not 
being  allowed  to  bring  in  books  of  reference;  the  disputants  were  to  trust 
to  memory  and  there  was  no  ready  way  to  verify  quotations;  Luther 
sometimes  felt  that  Eck  did  not  honestly  use  his  authorities,  and  both 
were  liable  to  misquote.  Melanchthon  had  in  mind  when  he  went  to 
Leipzig  an  ideal  discussion,  in  which  both  sides  seek  only  truth,  in  which 
opinion  is  calmly  compared  with  opinion,  and  in  which  defeat  brings 
no  humiliation  and  victory  no  glorying.  Of  course  he  was  disappointed. 
The  noise  and  confusion  shocked  him;  the  lack  of  logical  pertinency 
surprised  him,  the  eager  desire  for  victory  scandalized  him.  Luther 
felt  very  much  the  same  way:  he  thought  the  discussion  a  waste  of  time. 

Eck  had  the  favor  of  the  university  and  people  of  Leipzig  at  the  close, 
as  at  the  beginning.  He  was  feted  and  dined  and  in  many  ways  honored. 
Luther,  on  the  other  hand,  felt  that  he  had  not  been  generously  treated, 
but  he  excepted  some  from  the  blame.  In  the  university  there  were 
candid  and  earnest  friends  of  learning,  and  the  city  council  and  the  better 
class  of  citizens  much  regretted  the  discourtesy  shown  him.  He  heartily 
praised  Duke  George,3  who  did  everything  possible  to  make  the  disputa- 
tion profitable,  and  he  owed  nothing  to  the  university  except  all  honor. 
This  last  was  said  with  qualification.  He  was  evidently  downhearted, 
but  not  without  some  crumbs  of  comfort:  he  did  not  go  home  altogether 
empty-handed;  he  carried  with  him,  as  he  thought,  some  increase  of 
fame.  Eck  praised  his  learning,  and  the  Leipzig  people,  while  claiming 
the  victory  for  Eck,  thought  he  would  have  been  defeated  if  they  had 

1  Eck  afterwards  thus  stated  the  case:  "Doctor  Martin  said  that  he  knew 
there  is  a  Purgatory,  but  that  it  could  not  be  proved  from  Scripture.  I  undertook 
to  prove  from  Scripture  that  there  is  a  Purgatory."  LOL,  3:  491. 

sLOL,  3:  234,  235. 

8  "Most  of  all  is  to  be  praised  the  illustrious  prince  Duke  George,  who  with 
real  princely  kindness  and  magnificence  omitted  nothing  to  bring  it  about  that 
the  disputation  yield  good  fruit,  and  that  the  pure  truth  should  be  sought  rather 
than  glory."  LOL,  3:  230.  This  compares  curiously  with  many  of  Luther's, 
subsequent  sayings  about  this  prince. 


THE  LEIPZIG  DISPUTATION  107 

not  helped  him!  Eck,  however,  thought  the  people  were  good  enough, 
but  that  he  had  contended  alone.1  He  certainly  had  shown  himself  a 
disputant  of  great  endurance  and  skill.  Luther  spoke  of  him  as  a  man 
of  varied  and  copious  classic  and  scholastic  learning,  but  who  had  scarce- 
ly saluted  sacred  learning  from  the  threshold.  In  another  place  he  less 
elegantly  said  that  Eck  knew  about  as  much  of  theology  as  an  ass  does 
of  music.  The  man  at  Leipzig  who  most  pleased  Luther  was  Melanch- 
thon;  and  when  Eck,  after  the  discussion,  attacked  the  young  teacher 
of  Greek,  Luther  put  strong  arms  of  protection  about  him.  He  was  not 
ashamed  to  confess  that  he  daily  gave  up  his  own  judgment  hi  deference 
to  Philip's.  "Not  that  I  praise  Philip/'  he  said,  "who  is  a  creature  of 
God  and  nothing,  but  I  venerate  the  work  of  God  in  him. "  Melanchthon 
had  been  with  Luther  a  year,  and  was  twenty-two  years  old. 

Luther  felt  that  he  was  overmatched  at  Leipzig,  but  such  was  hardly 
the  case.  He  spoke  to  a  hostile  and  Eck  to  a  friendly  audience — that  was 
a  weight  for  him  to  carry.  Several  times  he  lost  his  temper  and  inter- 
rupted Eck,  once  with  the  cry,  mendacium,  but  as  a  rule  he  kept  more 
clearly  to  the  point  than  his  adversary,  and  his  method  was  more  orderly. 
Some  of  Eck's  quotations  were  scarcely  pertinent  to  the  case,  and  when 
they  were  pertinent  they  would  have  weight  only  with  those  who  attrib- 
uted a  sort  of  infallibility  to  the  old  teachers — with  Protestants  they 
have  no  weight  at  all.  He  quoted  Popes  in  defense  of  the  Papacy,2 
which  was  hardly  allowable,  unless  the  papal  infallibility  was  taken  for 
granted,  and  that  was  virtually  the  thing  in  dispute.  We  know  now  that 
some  of  Eck's  papal  decretals  were  not  genuine;  they  were  among  the 
famous  forged  decretals  of  Isidore.  Luther  suspected  some  of  them, 
because  they  showed  ignorance  unworthy  of  any  Pope,  but  as  yet  they 
were  not  rejected.3  In  the  interpretation  of  Scripture  Luther  was  much 
superior  to  his  antagonist.  As  a  rule,  when  both  quoted  the  same  authori- 
ties, Luther  quoted  them  more  justly  and  pertinently.  When  the  report 
of  the  discussion  was  printed  and  could  be  read  calmly,  Eck's  present 

1  Both  disputants  virtually  confessed  defeat.     Eck  says  in  a  letter  to  Hoog- 
straat:  "In  many  things  Luther  got  the  better  of  me;  because  first  they  brought 
books  with  them,  in  which  they  had  notes,  and  which  they  took  into  the  place 
of  discussion;  second,  because  they  took  notes  of  the  discussion  and  conferred 
about  them  at  home.     And  third,  because  there  were  so  many  of  them,  and  he 
alone,  with  only  justice  on  his  side,  stood  against  them."     LOL,  3:  477. 

2  Eck  said,  "It  is  certain  that  the  holy  Popes  also  wrote  that  they  were  universal 
bishops,  as  Sixtus  and  Victor."     LOL,  3:  103.     Sixtus  and  Victor  are  among  the 
early  Popes  to  whom  the  pseudo-Isidore  attributed  letters,  forged  of  course. 

3  Pope  Anacletus  is  made  to  say  that  the  most  holy  Roman  Church  did  not 
obtain  the  primacy  from  the  apostles  but  from  Christ   himself.      He   translated 
Cephas  "head,"  and  used  the  word  "cardinal"  as  referring  to  the  Church  some 
centuries  before  it  actually  came  to  be  so  used — which  ignorance,  said  Luther, 
ought  not  to  be  attributed  to  so  great  a  bishop.     Eck  had  the  indiscretion  to 
insist  that  Cephas  might  mean  "head,"  and  to  quote  authority  to  prove  it.     LOL,, 
3:  60,  74;  Seitz,  86,  98, 


108  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

victory,  if  it  was  a  victory,  came  to  be  final  defeat.  In  a  little  more 
than  a  year  from  the  time  of  the  discussion,  the  sentiment  was  so  far 
changed  in  Leipzig  that  he  could  not  safely  appear  there  in  public. 

In  some  respects  Eck  doubtless  failed,  but  if  he  expected  to  win  a 
lasting  name  for  himself  he  was  not  disappointed;  wherever  Luther  is 
known,  Eck  will  be  named  with  him.  Their  disputation  renewed  a 
contest  that  might,  but  for  that  disputation,  have  died  out.  It  not 
only  renewed  it  but  widened  it.  It  brought  into  prominence  the  dis- 
tinction between  a  Pope  by  divine  commission  and  a  Pope  by  human 
appointment,  a  distinction  that  there  had  been  no  occasion  to  make 
before,  but  once  made  was  never  to  be  forgotten. 


CHAPTER  V 

THE  BULL   OF  EXCOMMUNICATION 

THE  Leipzig  disputation  wrought  a  change  in  Luther — this  was  one 
of  the  first  and  most  important  effects  of  the  contest.  He  had  been 
sincere  in  his  professions  of  loyalty  to  the  Pope,  and  had  no  wish  to 
separate  from  the  Roman  Church,  for  in  his  view  a  schismatic  was  little 
better  than  a  heretic.  He  had  a  clear,  strong  conviction  that  the  Pope 
was  leading  men  astray,  and  destroying  the  liberties  of  the  Church; 
but  at  the  same  time  he  felt  that  it  was  his  duty  to  submit  to  him,  what- 
ever he  might  be  or  do.1  But  it  came  to  him,  as  it  had  not  come  to  him 
before,  that  the  Greeks  were  Christians,  and  yet  not  subject  to  the  Pope; 
that  the  Bohemians,  too,  were  Christians,  although  they  had  no  con- 
nection with  the  Roman  Church;  and  that  it  might  be  the  same  with  the 
Germans,  or  any  other  people.  This  new  light,  after  a  while,  revealed 
to  him  an  open  and  plain  way,  and  he  did  not  hesitate  to  take  it — in 
fact,  there  was  no  other  way  for  him.  If  there  had  been  no  discussion, 
he  might  have  gone  on  recognizing  the  Pope  as  head  of  the  Church,  and 
giving  him  reverence  as  such.  "We  do  not  at  all  differ, "  he  said,  "as 
to  the  thing  itself,  but  only  as  to  the  causes  and  origin  of  the  thing.  For 
I  do  not  deny  that  the  bishop  of  Rome  is,  has  been  and  will  be  first; 
as  to  this  I  do  not  dispute,  as  to  this  there  is  no  question."2  After  a 
while  he  learned  better;  he  found  out  that  his  adversaries  would  not  and 
could  not  recognize  his  Pope  as  any  Pope  at  all;  and  that  their  Pope 
was  a  Pope  whom  he  could  not  acknowledge.  It  was  at  Leipzig  that 
he  was  taught  how  irreconcilable  was  the  difference  between  them. 

He  did  not  at  once  see  that  this  difference  must  put  him  in  an  indepen- 
dent and  hostile  position.  In  his  first  publications  after  the  disputation 

1  "I  am  content  that  the  Pope  should  be  called  lord  of  all.     What  is  that  to 
me  who  know  that  even  the  Turk  is  to  be  honored  and  endured  for  the  sake  of 
the  power?"     Luther  to  Spalatin,   March  5,   1519.     After  the  disputation,  in 
his  explanation  of  proposition  13  on  the  power  of  the  Pope,  he  repeated  in  many 
ways  his  belief  that  the  Pope,  although  he  was  not  the  head  of  the  Church  by 
divine  right,  was  yet  to  be  honored.     It  weighed  much  with  him  that  the  Pope 
was  Pope  by  the  common  consent  of  all  the  faithful.     To  despise  that  common 
consent  would  be  to  deny  Christ  and  contemn  the  Church.     "Is  it  possible," 
said  he,  "that  Christ  is  not  among  so  many  and  so  great  Christians?     But  if 
Christ  is  there,  and  Christians  are  there,  we  ought  to  stand  with  Christ  and  Chris- 
tians in  everything  that  is  not  contrary  to  the  command  of  God."     LOL,  3:  302. 

2  Primum  vides,  lector,  de  re  ipsa  nos  non  admodum  dissentire,  sed  de  causis  et 
origins  rei.     Nam  nee  ego  nego  Romanum  pontificem  esse,  fuisse,  fore  primum, 
nee  de  hoc  dispute,  me  hoc  quaeritur.     Explanation  of  proposition  on  Pope's  power. 
LOL,  3:  299. 

109 


110  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

he  spoke  of  the  Pope  just  as  he  had  all  along  been  speaking  of  him,  still 
deceiving  himself  with  the  notion  that  the  dispute  was  only  as  to  the  man- 
ner of  the  thing,  not  the  thing  itself.  But  that  could  not  last.  If  it  were  a 
matter  of  material  interest,  we  might  perhaps  discover  exactly  when  it 
was  that  he  first  came  to  a  full  understanding  of  the  case;  it  is  enough 
for  our  purpose  to  know  that  in  the  next  year  his  learning  was  com- 
plete. In  October,  1520,  he  wrote:  "Willing  or  unwilling,  I  am  com- 
pelled to  become  more  learned  day  by  day,  having  so  many  and  so  great 
teachers."  Prierias  and  others  had  instructed  him  about  indulgences. 
He  had  thought  they  might  be  of  some  use;  he  had  found  out  that  they 
were  mere  impositions.  Afterwards,  he  says,  Eck  and  Emser  and  their 
confederates  began  to  teach  him  about  the  primacy  of  the  Pope.  "And 
here,  that  I  may  not  appear  ungrateful  to  so  learned  men,  I  confess  that 
their  works  have  profited  me  much.  For  although  I  had  denied  that  the 
Papacy  is  of  divine,  I  had  admitted  that  it  is  of  human,  right.  But  I 
have  heard  and  read  the  most  subtle  subtleties  of  those  valiant  soldiers, 
and  I  now  know  and  am  certain  that  the  Papacy  is  the  kingdom  of  Baby- 
lon, and  the  power  of  Nimrod,  the  mighty  hunter. "  A  little  later  he  says, 
"Unfortunately,  at  the  time  of  the  Leipzig  disputation  I  had  not  read 
John  Hus,  otherwise  I  should  have  maintained  not  some  but  all  the  articles 
that  were  condemned  at  Constance,  just  as  I  now  hold  them,  having 
read  that  most  wise,  noble,  Christian  book  of  John  Hus,  the  like  of  which 
has  not  been  written  for  four  hundred  years,  and  which  has  now,  through 
the  divine  favor  been  put  in  print,  to  testify  to  the  truth  and  put  to 
open  shame  all  those  who  have  condemned  it.  "* 

The  work  here  mentioned  by  Luther  is  Hus's  treatise  "On  the  Church. " 
But  it  is  not  the  work  itself  so  much  as  the  fact  that  it  had  been  printed, 
and  Luther's  pleasure  in  the  fact,  that  is  significant.  His  reference  to 
it  is  like  the  note  of  the  robin,  a  harbinger  of  spring — it  marks  the  approach 
of  a  new  season.  It  was  not  the  first  note  of  that  kind.  At  the  close 
of  the  third  day's  dispute  at  Leipzig,  according  to  the  regular  order,  the 
disputants  must  pass  to  the  next  question  on  the  schedule.  Luther  felt 
that  he  had  yet  more  to  say  in  reference  to  the  Pope's  power,  and  an- 
nounced that  he  would  continue  the  discussion  in  writing.  It  was  a 
very  simple  and  natural  announcement,  but  it  had  a  significance  that 
neither  Luther  nor  his  hearers  fully  comprehended.  He  meant  nothing 
more  than  that  he  would  transfer  that  particular  case  from  the  forum  of 
the  university  to  the  forum  of  the  press;  he  did  not  realize  that  what  he 
was  about  to  do  in  one  case  was  soon  to  be  done  in  all  cases — that  in 
one  of  its  most  important  functions,  that  of  diffusing  knowledge,  the 

1  See  the  opening  paragraphs  of  Luther's  treatise  "On  the  Babylonian  Cap- 
tivity of  the  Church."  Wace  and  Bucheim,  141  seq. 


THE  BULL  OF  EXCOMMUNICATION  111 

university  was  beginning  to  give  place  to  a  mightier  and  more  effective 
agency.  There,  at  Leipzig,  on  the  6th  day  of  July,  1519,  one  of  the 
disputants  virtually  announced  that  the  supremacy  of  the  university 
was  ended,  and  the  reign  of  the  printing-press  was  begun.  It  had  been 
agreed  that  the  report  made  by  the  notaries  should  be  submitted  to  the 
universities  of  Erfurt  and  Paris,  and  that  they  should  decide  which  of 
the  disputants  had  the  better  arguments.  But  before  the  universities 
had  had  time  to  decide,  Luther  and  Eck  and  others  had  already  through 
the  press  appealed  to  the  world;  and  from  that  day  to  this,  not  the  learned 
few,  but  all  who  can  read,  have  been  the  moderators  and  judges  of  all 
great  disputes.  >>. 

Before  the  coming  of  Luther,  the  press  had  been  used  in  the  controversy  ^i 
of  Reuchlin  with  the  adversaries  of  Hebrew  learning.  But  the  affair  * 
of  Reuchlin  was  local  and  temporary,  and  the  interest  in  it  was  confined 
almost  entirely  to  the  learned.  It  was  different  with  the  Lutheran  move- 
ment: that  was  on  a  wider  field,  concerned  men  of  all  classes,  touched 
the  most  vital  interests,  and  awakened  universal  attention.  It  presented 
the  first  real  opportunity  of  using  and  testing  the  power  of  the  newly 
invented  art  of  printing.  Then  came  with  all  its  popular  efficacy  the 
controversial  pamphlet;  and  Luther,  as  he  was  among  the  first,  was  also 
among  the  greatest  of  pamphleteers.  When  he  published  his  Theses  he 
was  surprised  at  the  rapidity  with  which  they  found  their  way  into  all 
Germany — it  was  almost  as  if  his  thoughts  had  been  silently  borne  upon 
the  winds.  It  was  the  same  with  his  "  Explanation  of  the  Theses/' 
with  his  reply  to  Prierias,  with  Eck's  "Obelisks"  and  his  answering 
"Asterisks."  Having  early  learned  by  experience  how  greatly  the 
press  increased  h"is  power,  he  made  a  lavish  use  of  it;  he  framed  his  thoughts 
with  a  view  to  printing  them,  just  as  others  framed  theirs  with  a  view 
to  oral  expression.  He  wrote  rapidly,  sometimes  vehemently,  always 
vigorously,  and  with  a  definite  object  in  view.  He  cared  nothing  for 
style;  he  had  no  ambition  for  literary  fame;  he  wrote  for  present  effect; 
that  produced,  he  was  content  his  writings  should  be  forgotten.1  He 
was  among  the  first  to  use  the  press  for  immediate  popular  effect — he 
set  the  fashion,  but  it  was  immediately  and  enthusiastically  followed. 
It  had  been  the  old  custom  to  send  around  theses  and  discussions  in 
manuscript;  that  custom  passed  out,  and  those  who  had  anything  to 
say  said  it  in  print — even  personal  letters,  if  they  contained  anything 
of  public  interest,  were  almost  sure  to  be  published.2 

1  Habere  enim  puto  theatrum  meum  suam  horam,  post  me  alius  sequetur;  si  Dominus 
volet,  ego  tempori  meo  satis fecerim.     LOL,  3:  297. 

2  Bibliographers  have  calculated  that,  in  the  five  years  before  the  posting  of  the 
Theses,  527  books  were  published  in  Germany;  in  the  five  years  following  there 
were  3,113  books  published,  of  which  four-fifths  were  favorable  to  the  Reformation, 
Of  these,  about  600  were  published  in  Wittenberg  alone.     Cf.  Schaff,  6:  560  seq. 


112  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

The  beginning  of  the  Lutheran  controversy  had  stimulated  literary  activ- 
ity; the  renewal  and  widening  of  that  controversy  by  the  Leipzig  dis- 
putation led  to  still  greater  zeal  in  publishing.  Almost  immediately 
after  his  return  to  Wittenberg,  Luther  wrote  and  published  an  account 
of  what  took  place  at  Leipzig.1  " Because,"  said  he,  "in  the  disputation 
there  was  rather  a  waste  of  time  than  a  searching  for  truth,  I  wish  to 
publish  an  explanation  of  my  propositions,  being  sure  that  a  better  under- 
standing of  the  questions  may  be  reached  in  that  way  than  by  two  weeks' 
discussion  of  that  kind. "  This  account  he  followed  by  a  second  and  some- 
what enlarged  edition  of  a  treatise  on  the  power  of  the  Pope,  which  he 
wrote  before  going  to  Leipzig.  Melanchthon  also  gave  an  account  of  the 
disputation  in  a  letter  to  Oekolampadius,  which  was  published;  it  was 
his  first  publication  in  reference  to  the  matters  in  dispute,  and  was  such 
a  letter  as  we  might  expect  the  young  professor  to  write — a  little  stiff 
and  overlearned,  it  may  be,  but  calm,  judicial  and  weighty.  He  had 
already  vexed  Eck  at  Leipzig  by  giving  suggestive  hints  to  Carlstadt 
and  Luther;  he  vexed  him  even  more  by  his  letter.  Eck  replied,  and 
Melanchthon  rejoined  in  a  tract  in  which  he  showed  himself  already  the 
equal  of  his  contemporaries  in  learning  and  judgment,  and  more  than  their 
equal  in  courtesy  and  moderation.2  On  Eck's  side,  Emser,  professor  at 
Leipzig,  wrote  a  letter  to  the  Bohemians,  hi  which  he  dwelt  on  the  things 
that  Luther  had  said  against  the  Husites,  and  at  the  same  time  insinuated 
Luther's  heresy  in  the  Catholic  sense.  The  letter  was  ingenious:  in 
proportion  as  Luther  had  lost  favor  at  Rome  he  had  gained  it  in  Bohemia; 
Emser  being  sure  that  the  papists  sufficiently  hated  him,  sought  to  show 
that  the  Husites  had  no  cause  to  love  the  Saxon.  Luther  replied  at  length 
and  effectively,  in  a  paper  addressed  "to  the  Emserian  Goat"  (alluding 
to  the  goat  of  Emser's  coat  of  arms)  and  Emser  rejoined  "to  the  Bull  of 
Wittenberg. "  Eck,  too,  replied  to  Luther's  account  of  the  disputation, 
and  Luther  again  to  Eck.  Oekolampadius  also  took  a  hand  in  the  fray, 
in  a  letter  from  the  "ignorant  canonists,"  as  Eck  had  called  some  of 
Luther's  friends.3  At  this  time,  too,  Lucas  Cranach,  the  painter,  fur- 
nished sketches  and  caricatures,  for  which  Luther  supplied  explanations 

1  Resolutions    Lutheri    super    propositionibus    auis   Leipsiae    disputatis.     Pub- 
lished in  August,  1519.     LOL,  3:  225  seq. 

2  Eck  thus  spoke  of  Melanchthon:  "The  Wittenberg  grammarian,  not  unlearned 
indeed  in  Latin  and  Greek,  has  dared  in  a  published  letter  to  attack  me  .  .  .  and 
to  take  upon  himself  the  office  of  judge,  which  we  assigned  to  the  university  of 
Paris."     LOL,  3:  488.     In  his  reply  Melanchthon  sufficiently  asserted  himself. 
He  said  in  reference  to  the  authority  of  the  ancients,  "How  often,  I  pray  you, 
has  Jerome  been  mistaken!  how  often  Augustine!  how  often  Ambrose!     And  these 
men  are  not  so  unknown  to  me  that  I  may  not  venture  to  speak  thus  freely  of 
them.     Yea,  it  is  possible  that  I  know  somewhat  more  about  them  than  Eck 
does  of  Aristotle."     Ib.  499,  500. 

3  Most  of  these  documents,  all  that  are  of  importance,  are  printed  in  Vols.  3 
and  4  of  Luther's  Op.  Lat.  Var. 


THE  BULL  OF  EXCOMMUNICATION  113 

and  notes.  And  so,  invective,  apology,  explanation,  sermon,  satire, 
lampoon,  cartoon — in  a  word,  all  kinds  of  writing — were  used  in  an  earnest 
controversy  following  the  Leipzig  disputation;  and  the  art  of  printing 
was  made  to  do  all  the  kinds  of  work,  good  and  bad,  of  which  it  was 
capable,  or  has  since  performed. 

At  this  time,  when  both  parties  were  so  earnestly  contending,  Erasmus 
again  came  to  Luther's  assistance.  It  was  in  a  letter  to  the  Archbishop 
and  Elector  of  Mainz,  even  more  definite  and  outspoken  than  his  previous 
letter  to  Elector  Frederick  of  Saxony.  He  did  not  intend  it  to  be  pub- 
lished, but  it  was  published.  Luther,  he  said,  had  dared  to  doubt  about 
indulgences,  but  not  until  his  adversaries  had  imprudently  claimed  too 
much  for  them.  He  had  dared  to  speak  too  rashly  of  the  papal  power, 
but  not  until  the  other  side  had  written  too  rashly  of  it.  He  had  dared 
to  despise  the  teachings  of  Thomas  Aquinas,  but  not  until  the  Domini- 
cans had  extolled  them  almost  above  the  Gospels.  Going  through  the 
whole  catalogue  of  things  in  which  Luther  had  offended,  he  claimed  that 
in  each  case  the  other  side  had  provoked  his  opposition;  and  in  general 
he  represented  the  state  of  the  Church  to  be  such  as  to  torture  pious 
minds.  Luther  acknowledged  the  value  of  this  letter  to  him,  but  grudg- 
ingly and  with  unworthy  lamentations.1  In  thinking  of  the  printing 
press  of  that  day,  it  is  just  to  recall  that  no  one  used  it  more  worthily 
than  Erasmus  of  Rotterdam. 

As  the  Leipzig  disputation  had  driven  Luther  to  a  more  advanced 
position,  so  it  had  confirmed  Eck  in  his  position  as  leader  of  the  papal 
party  in  Germany.  He  and  Luther  had  met  and  parted  with  mutual 
respect — Eck  praised  Luther,  and  Luther  praised  Eck — but  this  could 
not  last;  neither  had  gained  a  clear  victory  over  the  other,  and  neither 
was  thoroughly  pleased  with  himself  and  his  own  performance.  Each 
was,  therefore,  in  a  position  in  which  it  was  easy  for  him  to  think  ill  of 
the  other;  the  controversy,  not  without  a  personal  element  from  the  first, 
grew  to  be  bitterly  personal  at  the  last.  Luther  suspected  Eck  of  mali- 
ciously desiring  his  destruction,  and  the  part  that  Eck  was  to  play  went 
far  toward  justifying  the  suspicion.  As  it  was  with  Eck  and  Luther, 
so  it  was  with  Luther  and  Duke  George  of  Saxony.  Even  at  Leipzig 
the  Duke  had  not  been  pleased  with  Luther's  apology  for  Hus.  His 
territory  joined  Bohemia;  he  himself  was  descended  from  a  Bohemian 
family,  and  he  had  an  inherited  dread  of  the  Bohemian  heretics.  He 
thought  the  doctrine  of  the  Husites,  especially  the  doctrine  that  a  ruler 
in  sin  lost  the  right  to  his  subjects'  obedience,  dangerous  and  subversive 
of  all  government,  and  that  to  be  a  Husite  was  to  be  a  public  enemy. 

1  Luther  to  John  Lange,  Jan.  26,  1520,  De  Wette,  1 : 396.  The  letter  of  Erasmus 
is  in  his  collected  works,  3:  513. 


114  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

Already  not  pleased  with  Luther,  he  was  ready  to  break  with  him  when- 
ever an  occasion  should  offer.  Luther  gave  the  occasion  in  a  sermon 
preached  in  November,  1519,  in  which  he  taught  that  it  would  be  better 
if  the  Supper  should  be  given  to  all  men  under  both  forms,  in  the  wine  as 
well  as  in  the  bread,  the  distinctively  Husite  practice.  As  soon  as  the 
Duke  came  to  be  against  Luther,  Luther  was  against  the  Duke;  and  ever 
afterwards  spoke  of  him  as  his  enemy  and  the  enemy  of  all  that  was 
good.  His  feelings  against  the  Duke  were  no  doubt  much  embittered  by 
the  fact  that  the  latter  had  advised  Frederick,  both  neighbor  and  kins- 
man, to  expel  Luther  from  his  dominions. 

On  June  28th,  while  Eck  and  Carlstadt  were  disputing  about  pre- 
destination and  free  will  at  Leipzig,  a  new  Emperor  was  chosen  at  Frank- 
fort. There  were  two  prominent  candidates  for  the  imperial  dignity, 
Francis  I  king  of  France,  and  Charles  of  Austria,  recently  become  king 
of  Spain.  For  a  time  Henry  VIII  of  England  was  also  a  candidate  (or 
rather,  thought  he  was),  but  never  with  slightest  prospect  of  success. 
Between  Francis  and  Charles,  however,  it  was  a  serious  contest,  and  neither 
spared  any  persuasion  of  favor  or  money  to  win  the  prize.  The  Arch- 
bishop of  Mainz  favored  Charles;  his  brother  of  Trier  was  the  advocate 
of  Francis.  There  was  no  view  of  the  case  that  did  not  involve  serious 
dangers.  If  Francis  should  be  chosen,  it  was  almost  certain  that  the 
Empire  would  be  involved  in  war  with  Spain;  and  in  such  case,  the  fact 
that  Austria,  one  of  the  most  considerable  states  of  the  Empire,  belonged 
to  the  king  of  Spain,  would  produce  an  awkward  complication  of  things. 
On  the  other  hand,  should  Charles  be  elected,  the  likelihood  was  that 
there  would  be  war  with  France.  And  besides  the  danger  of  war,  which- 
ever one  might  be  chosen,  there  was  also  an  objection  to  both  of  them — 
they  were  too  powerful.  A  strong  Emperor  might  endanger  the  local 
liberties  of  Germany.  In  ordinary  circumstances  this  latter  danger 
would  have  been  conclusive  against  both  Charles  and  Francis;  but  Europe, 
especially  Germany,  was  at  that  time  threatened  by  the  Turks,  and  a 
strong  Emperor  was  necessary  to  the  public  safety.  It  might  be  danger- 
ous to  have  a  strong  Emperor,  and  it  would  be  still  more  dangerous  not 
to  have  a  strong  Emperor.  The  Electors  were  influenced  by  both  these 
considerations. 

At  first  their  choice  fell  on  Frederick  of  Saxony — in  his  hands  German 
liberties  would  be  safe.  Once  before,  hi  similar  circumstances,  a  Saxon 
Duke  had  been  chosen  Emperor:  in  the  time  immediately  following  the 
breaking  up  of  the  Empire  of  Charlemagne,  when  Northern  and  Eastern 
barbarians — Hungarians,  Northmen,  and  others — were  committing  their 
ravages.  The  old  Saxon,  Otho,  thanked  the  nobles  for  the  honor  but 
firmly  declined  it — the  Empire  needed  a  younger  and  more  powerful 


THE  BULL  OF  EXCOMMUNICATION  115 

man,  he  insisted,  and  he  turned  the  choice  away  from  himself  to  Conrad, 
Duke  of  Franconia.  At  the  close  of  Conrad's  reign,  he  might  have  trans- 
mitted the  power  to  his  infant  son,  but  as  the  circumstances  of  Germany 
had  not  materially  changed,  and  a  strong  man  was  still  needed,  Conrad, 
influenced  alike  by  gratitude  and  patriotism,  gave  his  influence  to  Henry, 
son  of  that  Otho  to  whom  he  owed  his  power.  This  was  Henry  the  Fowler 
of  history.  As  if  to  show  that  German  patriotism  was  still  a  living  force, 
the  noble  Frederick  preferred  the  safety  of  his  country  to  the  highest 
human  honor,  and  declined  to  be  Emperor.1  The  choice  was  again  be- 
tween Francis  and  Charles.  Charles  was  of  German  stock  and  that  fact 
proved  to  be  decisive;  Elector  Frederick  made  a  brief  address  strongly 
favoring  Charles;  the  Archbishop  of  Trier  withdrew  his  objections  to  him 
and  he  was  elected,  nemine  contradicente,  as  the  record  has  it. 

At  that  time  little  could  be  known  of  the  personal  qualifications  of 
this  prince  for  so  high  and  responsible  an  office.  Having  been  born  in 
the  year  1500,  he  was  only  nineteen  years  old,  and  was  as  yet,  untried. 
His  election  as  Emperor  made  him  the  most  powerful  sovereign  in  Europe, 
and  in  the  extent  of  his  possessions  he  was  probably  the  richest  of  all 
the  German  Emperors.  On  one  side  he  was  grandson  and  heir  of  Emperor 
Maximilian,  who  was  born  Duke  of  Austria,  and  by  his  marriage  with 
the  daughter  of  Charles  the  Bold  became  Duke  of  Burgundy  and  the 
Netherlands.  On  the  other  side  he  was  grandson  of  Ferdinand  and 
Isabella,  and  inherited  from  them  Spain  and  Naples,  claims  in  Italy,  and 
the  recently  discovered  New  World.  And  now,  by  his  election  as  Emper- 
or, he  added  Germany  to  his  other  dominions.  He  would  have  been 
singularly  insensible  to  the  influence  of  human  grandeur  and  power  if 
he  had  not  felt  the  greatness  of  his  position.  The  kings  of  Europe  at 
that  time  were  addressed  as  "Your  Highness"  or  "Your  Excellency"; 
Charles  insisted  on  being  called  "Your  Majesty."  In  this,  however,  he 
vainly  sought  distinction,  as  in  a  short  time  the  old  custom  passed  out, 
and  the  weakest  and  poorest  king,  equally  with  the  Emperor,  was  styled 
"Your  Majesty."2 

The  election  of  Charles  was  an  event  of  the  highest  importance.  His 
reign  lasted  through  the  whole  time  when  the  Reformation  was  struggling 
for  the  right  to  be;  and  on  the  political  side  no  other  person  is  to  be  com- 
pared with  him  in  influence.  His  position  as  Emperor  made  him  the 
defender  of  Christendom,  the  Pope,  and  the  Church  of  Rome;  this  neces- 
sarily brought  him  into  close  relations  with  the  papal  party,  and  with  the 
Pope  as  its  head.  To  restrain  as  far  as  possible  his  great  powers,  the 

1  Sleidan  says  that  agents  of  Charles  offered  Frederick  a  great  sum  of  money 
for  his  refusal  of  the  imperial  crown,  but  Frederick  refused  it — his  vote  was  not 
for  sale;  he  had  acted  for  the  interests  of  his  country,  not  for  himself. 

1  Robertson's  "Charles  V,"  1:352,  ed.     Prescott. 


116  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

Electors  imposed  on  him  certain  conditions,  chiefly  relating  to  German 
privileges,  but  several  having  a  particular  bearing  on  Luther's  affairs. 
Of  the  former  kind  was  the  requirement  that  he  should  choose  a  council 
of  Germans  to  govern  the  state — this  was  the  Regency,  or  Reichsregi- 
ment,  created  in  Maximilian's  time;  of  the  latter,  that  he  should  see  to 
it  that  the  Pope  should  not  encroach  upon  the  privileges  and  liberties 
of  the  Empire,  and  that  he  himself  should  subject  no  man  to  the  ban  of 
the  Empire  without  a  hearing. 

The  new  Emperor  was  in  Spain.  It  would  be  some  time  before  he 
could  hear  of  his  election,  and  a  still  longer  time  before  he  could  take  any 
active  part  in  ecclesiastical  matters;  but,  after  a  while,  he  must  favor 
the  Pope  against  Luther.  His  election  was,  therefore,  an  obvious  advance 
toward  the  threatening  conflict.  Luther's  respite  had  all  along  been 
felt  to  be  nothing  but  a  respite;  and  now  the  march  of  doom,  halted  by 
the  death  of  Maximilian,  was  again  to  begin.  Some  thought  that  Luther's 
only  safety  was  in  flight,  and  it  occurred  to  him  as  a  possibility  that  he 
might  be  compelled  to  seek  refuge  in  Bohemia.  This,  however,  was  a 
thing  thought  of  but  not  approved — to  flee  would  be  to  give  up  all  for 
which  he  had  been  contending — he  must  in  some  way  stand  his  ground. 
The  movement  had  not  yet  acquired  sufficient  momentum  to  carry  it 
on  without  his  help;  he  must  not  only  continue  in  it,  but  continue  to  stand 
for  it  and  represent  it;  and,  as  his  dangers  became  more  pressing  and 
manifest,  new  sources  of  help  and  encouragement  were  developed. 

One  of  the  most  embarrassing  things  in  his  situation  was  the  burden 
that  his  protection  put  upon  the  Elector  Frederick;  as  long  as  he  remained 
at  Wittenberg,  his  honored  friend  must,  to  some  extent,  bear  with  him 
the  odium  and  danger  of  his  course.  It  was  a  relief  to  him,  therefore, 
that  some  other  place  of  safety  was  open  to  him;  and  that  there  were 
men  in  Germany  who,  if  matters  should  come  to  the  worst,  were  ready 
to  take  his  part.  It  was  hi  the  beginning  of  1520  that  he  received  his 
first  letter  from  Ulric  von  Hutten,  and  through  him  an  offer  of  an  asylum 
from  Franz  von  Sickingen.  The  first  of  these  was  poet,  satirist,  soldier, 
reformer;  a  man  of  restless  and  reckless  disposition,  brilliant,  enthusiastic, 
and  full  of  enterprise.  In  his  youth  he  had  been  forced  into  a  monastery 
against  his  will,  and  had  escaped  full  of  bitterness  toward  the  monks 
and  monachism.  His  passion  was  for  learning,  and  his  proudest  dis- 
tinction was  that  which  Maximilian  conferred  on  him,  as  poet  laureate 
of  Germany.  He  was  a  Humanist,  a  friend  of  the  new  learning  and  a 
representative  man  of  the  new  age.  Von  Sickingen  was  a  man  of  far 
more  military  and  political  significance;  his  resources  were  great;  he  was 
a  tried  and  distinguished  soldier,  a  German  patriot,  and  at  last  lost  his 
life  in  a  vain  effort,  in  which  he  and  Hutten  worked  together,  for  the 


THE  BULL  OF  EXCOMMUNICATION  117 

unity  of  Germany.  It  is  not  easy  to  learn  exactly  what  it  was  that  drew 
these  two  men  toward  Luther.  Possibly  it  was  their  strong  German 
feeling,  their  hostility  to  the  Pope  as  an  oppressor  of  the  Fatherland; 
Possibly  it  was  sympathy  for  Luther  in  his  fight  against  overwhelming 
odds — it  was  not  the  part  of  brave  men  to  see  a  brave  man  crushed  while 
contending  for  what  he  believed  to  be  a  righteous  cause,  the  cause  of  God 
and  of  Germany.  Luther  did  not  accept  their  offer,  but  the  fact  that 
they  made  it  brought  him  nearer  to  the  German  nobles,  made  him  feel 
more  keenly  that  his  cause  was  Germany's  cause,  and  no  doubt  suggested 
his  appeal  to  the  German  nation. 

This  he  made  in  the  form  of  an  "Address  to  the  Nobility  of  the  German 
Nation,"  published  in  June,  1520.1  It  was  a  cry  for  help,  earnest  and 
impassioned.  The  Church  had  fallen  into  a  sad  condition,  evils  were 
many  and  grievous;  all  peoples,  but  especially  the  people  of  Germany, 
were  wronged  and  oppressed,  and  all  the  ordinary  means  of  reformation 
and  relief  were  denied.  The  Roman  authorities  paid  no  attention  to 
appeals;  threats  and  remonstrances  did  not  move  them;  they  had,  as  it 
were,  surrounded  themselves  by  three  walls.  By  the  first  they  excluded 
the  secular  authorities  from  interfering  in  religious  matters,  claiming 
that  the  spiritual  is  above  the  secular  and  cannot  be  judged  by  it.  When 
they  were  assailed  by  arguments  from  the  Scripture  they  reared  a  second 
wall:  the  doctrine  that  the  interpretation  of  Scripture  belongs  only  to 
the  Pope.  If  a  general  council  was  threatened  or  demanded,  a  third 
wall  stood  in  the  way,  namely,  that  only  the  Pope  can  call  a  general 
council.  In  order  to  correct  the  existing  evils,  the  claims  of  papists 
must  be  disregarded;  these  walls  must  be  broken  down;  and  the  secular 
rulers — all  Christians  indeed — must  exercise  their  right  to  judge  and 
condemn  what  is  wrong  in  the  Church.  The  notion  that  there  is  a  dis- 
tinction between  the  spiritual  and  the  secular  is  untrue  as  well  as  mis- 
chievous :  all  Christians  are  of  the  spiritual  order,  and  there  is  among  them 
no  difference  but  that  of  office;  by  baptism  we  are  all  together  conse- 
crated to  be  priests.  It  is  equally  wrong  to  suppose  that  the  interpreta- 
tion of  Scripture  belongs  to  any  special  order  or  office;  all  are  taught  of 
God.  The  Pope  cannot  be  looked  upon  as  an  infallible  guide,  for  Popes 
have  often  erred;  and  who  can  help  Christendom  when  the  Pope  errs, 
if  we  may  not  believe  one  who  has  the  Scriptures  on  his  side?  Break 
down  the  distinction  between  secular  and  spiritual,  give  to  everyone  his 
right  to  interpret  the  Scriptures,  and  the  rest  will  follow — the  papal 
defenses  will  be  taken  away.  It  was  not  the  putting  of  class  against 
class,  the  secular  against  the  spiritual;  it  was  the  assertion  that  there  is 
only  one  class — all  are  spiritual. 

1  For  the  German  text  of  the  Address,  see  LDS,  21:  274-360;  Walch,  10:  296  aeq. 
English  version  in  Wace  and  Bucheim,  17-92. 


118  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

Having  asserted  the  right  and  duty  of  the  nobility  to  take  matters  :'n 
hand,  Luther  next  intimated  some  of  the  things  that  ought  to  be  done. 
First  of  all,  there  ought  to  be  a  free  general  council,  which  would  correct 
abuses,  restrain  the  extravagance  of  Popes,  reduce  the  number  of  Car- 
dinals and  make  the  Popes  support  them.  The  Pope's  court  ought  to  be 
reduced  to  one-hundredth  part  of  its  present  proportions,  and  various 
sources  of  papal  revenue  were  to  be  closed.  The  Pope  was  not  to  be 
permitted  to  claim  superiority  to  the  Emperor,  and  all  those  customs  by 
which  princes  were  in  the  habit  of  doing  reverence  to  the  Pope — the  hold- 
ing of  his  stirrup,  and  such  things — were  to  be  abolished.  No  more 
monasteries  were  to  be  built;  all  festivals  were  to  be  abolished  and  only 
Sunday  retained;  there  ought  to  be  no  more  indulgences,  and  fasting 
should  be  voluntary. 

There  were  several  things  to  which  we  must  give  a  little  more  emphasis. 
Thus  early  Luther  insisted  that  the  clergy  were  to  be  permitted  to  marry. 
Many  priests  were  already  married  in  fact,  but  not  in  law;  they  had  wives 
and  children,  but  not  with  a  clear  conscience.  Living  in  violation  of 
Church  law,  they  had  to  bear  reproach  and  a  sense  of  shame  and  guilt, 
although,  he  said,  they  were  not  violating  the  law  of  God;  he  wished  them 
to  be  relieved,  by  taking  away  the  prohibition  to  marry.  His  objection 
was  to  the  general  law  which  forbade  all  the  clergy  to  have  wives;  if 
a  bishop,  or  monks,  or  others,  should  be  voluntary  celibates,  it  was  their 
own  affair,  and  nothing  was  to  be  said  against  it.  In  this  Luther  made 
the  proper  distinction.  If  any  number  of  persons,  influenced  by  peculiar 
notions  of  devotion,  or  by  enthusiasm,  or  ambition,  or  even  class  dis- 
tinction should  elect  to  repress  or  crush  out  their  natural  instincts,  they 
might  succeed  in  keeping  themselves  pure;  but  when  the  law  requires  all 
of  a  class  to  do  what  is  difficult  for  a  select  few,  the  obedience  to  the  law 
must  in  many  cases  be  only  formal.  In  times  of  religious  enthusiasm, 
or  when  a  sense  of  obligation  to  vows  is  strong,  no  great  scandal  may 
occur;  but  in  seasons  of  religious  declension,  or  when  the  authority  of 
the  Church  for  any  cause  is  weakened,  the  law  loses  its  binding  power. 
It  tightens  or  relaxes  with  changing  circumstances,  while  the  force  that  it 
seeks  to  restrain,  is  as  constant  as  human  nature.  In  every  time  of  relaxa- 
tion, passion  asserts  itself  and  the  law  is  the  occasion  of  evil.  They  were 
then  passing  through  such  a  time.  Those  who  favored  the  law  were 
shocked  at  violation  of  it,  those  who  opposed  it  saw  in  the  violations  the 
best  reasons  for  its  abolition.  It  was  at  most  only  an  ecclesiastical  regu- 
lation, which  had  its  origin  and  justification  in  circumstances  that  no 
longer  existed;  the  good  it  could  do  was  reduced  to  the  minimum,  the 
evil  had  reached  its  maximum.  Luther,  therefore,  was  but  following  the 
suggestions  of  Ms  environment  when  he  insisted  on  the  marriage  of  the 


THE  BULL  OF  EXCOMMUNICATION  119 

clergy,  and  so  gave  to  the  churches  that  were  to  be  erected  by  the  new 
movement  the  parsonage  and  the  tender  associations  connected  with  it. 

The  next  thing  worthy  of  particular  notice  is,  that  Luther  saw  the 
cruelty  and  futility  of  persecution.  He  said,  "If  the  art  of  convincing 
heretics  by  fire  were  the  right  one,  then  the  executioners  would  be  the 
most  learned  Doctors  on  earth."  And  again,  "Heretics  should  be  con- 
vinced by  the  Scriptures,  and  not  by  the  sword. "  It  would  have  been 
well  for  his  fame  if  he  had  never  swerved  from  his  position.  He  had 
been  taught  toleration  by  the  intolerance  of  his  enemies;  unfortunately, 
the  lesson  was  one  that  could  be  learned  only  by  personal  experience, 
and,  even  so,  was  not  always  well  learned.  His  followers  did  not  learn 
it  at  all,  and  the  times  were  not  ripe  for  its  general  acceptance — it  was  to 
wait  for  the  slow  working  of  the  new  forces,  and  changed  political  con- 
ditions. 

A  third  point  has  reference  to  the  Eucharist.  One  party  held  that 
after  consecration  the  bread  and  wine  in  the  Lord's  Supper  were  no 
longer  essentially  bread  and  wine,  but  the  very  body  and  blood  of  Christ — 
this  had  been  the  official  doctrine  of  the  Roman  Church  since  the  Fourth 
Lateran  Council  (1215).  Others  were  now  reviving  an  older  doctrine  of 
the  Church,  that  the  bread  and  wine  still  remained.  Luther  thought 
that  this  difference  need  cause  no  division,  since  the  needful  thing  was  to 
believe  that  Christ  is  really  and  truly  and  essentially  present  in  the  bread 
and  wine.1  There  is  no  danger,  he  said,  in  believing  that  the  bread  is 
present  or  not  present;  we  must  tolerate  many  customs  and  ordinances 
that  are  not  injurious  to  the  faith.  In  this  last  sentence  he  gave  utter- 
ance to  what  has  been  called  the  conservative  principle  of  the  Reformation 
— his  shrinking  from  the  introduction  of  new,  and  from  the  overturning 
of  old,  customs.  His  was  the  case  of  a  conservative  by  nature  and  tram- 
ing  aroused  and  urged  onward  for  a  time  into  a  radical  policy  by  new 
and  revolutionary  principles. 

These  particulars  have  been  mentioned  in  order  to  show  more  clearly 
the  direction  in  which  Luther  was  advancing.  In  1518,  in  the  "Explana- 
tion of  his  Theses, "  he  wrote  on  thesis  89,  "The  Church  needs  reformation, 
but  that  reformation  is  not  the  business  of  one  man,  the  Pope,  nor  of 
many  Cardinals,  but  of  the  whole  world. "  The  "Address  to  the  German 
Nobility"  was  in  line  with  this  thought.  Rightly  understood  it  went  to 
the  bottom  of  things;  there  was  more  in  it  than  Luther  saw  there  at  the 

1  In  these  two  parties  we  may  see  the  Transubstantialists  and  the  Consub- 
stantionists  of  later  time.  In  Transubstantiation.  the  theory  is  that  the  sub- 
stance of  the  bread  becomes  the  substance  of  the  body  of  Christ,  the  accidents  re- 
maining the  same.  In  Consubstantiation  the  substance  of  the  bread  remains, 
and  the  substance  of  the  body  of  Christ  is  superadded.  In  the  former,  there 
is  only  one  substance — that  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ;  in  the  latter,  two 
substances,  of  the  bread  and  of  the  body- 


120  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

time,  or  it  may  be  afterwards,  or  than  the  world  has  since  realized.  It 
means  that  every  Christian,  however  humble  in  character  or  position, 
is,  in  his  measure,  a  reformer,  and  responsible  for  the  purity  of  the  Church* 
This  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Address.  It  is  in  the  Church  what  individual 
political  responsibility  is  in  the  State,  the  great  democratic  principle 
asserted  (and  possibly  perverted)  in  manhood  suffrage.  Than  this, 
Luther  taught  nothing  more  fundamental  and  nothing  more  antagonistic 
to  the  idea  of  a  spiritual  caste,  with  special  powers  and  privileges.  He 
held  that  it  was  the  duty  of  the  German  people  to  reform  the  German 
Church. 

Just  four  months  after  the  publication  of  this  address  followed  the 
"  Babylonian  Captivity  of  the  Church.  "*  It  was  a  discussion  of  the  sacra- 
ments. The  Church  had  long  held  that  there  were  seven  sacraments, 
namely,  baptism,  the  eucharist,  confirmation,  penance,  ordination, 
matrimony  and  extreme  unction.  These  seven  Luther  would  reduce  to 
three,  baptism,  the  eucharist  and  penance;  but  even  these,  he  thought, 
had  been  greatly  perverted — led,  as  it  were,  into  a  Babylonian  captivity. 
He  mentioned  first  the  eucharist:  the  Roman  tyranny  had  mutilated  it, 
had  destroyed  its  integrity,  by  forbidding  the  cup  to  the  laity.  "I  do 
not  mean,"  he  said,  "that  they  commit  sin  who  receive  in  only  one  kind, 
but  that  they  sin,  who,  in  mere  arbitrariness,  refuse  both  kinds  to  be 
given  to  those  who  wish  it."  The  sin  is  not  with  the  people,  but  with 
the  priests.  He  would  not  advise  that  both  kinds  be  taken  by  force,  as 
if  there  were  absolute  necessity  to  have  both;  but  he  would  instruct  men's 
consciences,  so  that  everyone  might  bear  the  Roman  tyranny  knowing 
that  his  lawful  rights  in  the  sacrament  had  been  taken  away  from  him 
on  account  of  his  sins.2  He  would  have  no  one,  however,  justify  the 
Roman  tyranny,  as  if  it  were  right  to  prohibit  one  kind  to  the  laity. 
All  should  protest  against  it,  and  yet  bear  it,  just  as  they  would  bear 
it  if  they  were  captives  among  the  Turks,  where  they  could  not  have  either 
kind. 

The  custom  of  withholding  the  cup  from  the  laity  was  of  long  standing; 
it  began  in  the  twelfth  century,  or  earlier,  following  the  general  accept- 
ance of  the  doctrine  of  transubstantiation.  When  it  came  to  be  thought 
that  the  bread  became  Christ's  very  body,  and  the  wine  his  very  blood, 
the  bread  and  wine  after  consecration  could  not  be  touched  by  profane 
hands.  The  tender  conscience  was  shocked  by  the  thought  that  crumbs 

1  LOL,  5:  13-118;  a  German  translation,  not  by  Luther,  is  in  Walch,  19:  4  seq. 
English  version  in  Wace  and  Bucheim,  141-245. 

2  Luther  regarded  the  evils  that  had  come  upon  Church  and  State  as  chastise- 
ments.    The  Turk,  the  Pope,  the  tyranny  of  bishops,  whatever  God's  people 
suffered,  were  sent  or  permitted  on  account  of  sins.     Hence  they  were  to  be  en- 
dured patiently,  as  coming  from  God. 


THE  BULL  OF  EXCOMMUNICATION  121 

of  the  bread  might  be  dropped  on  the  ground  or  floor,  to  be  trodden  under 
foot,  or,  it  may  be,  devoured  by  animals.  And  then  the  wine,  the  blood 
of  Christ,  might  be  spilled.  By  putting  the  bread  in  the  form  of  a  wafer 
the  first  danger  was  greatly  diminished,  but  how  could  they  provide 
against  the  spilling  of  the  blood  by  rough  and  eager  lay  communicants? 
The  most  effective  way  was  not  to  offer  it  to  them  at  all.  It  was  acknowl- 
edged that  at  the  original  institution  of  the  Supper,  both  the  bread  and 
wine  were  given  to  all,  and  that  for  centuries  that  custom  had  been 
continued;  but  it  was  held  that,  inasmuch  as  no  one  could  receive  the 
body  without  receiving  some  blood  with  it,  whoever  received  the  bread 
virtually  received  the  blood.  However,  not  to  lose  and  after  a  while 
forget  the  original  form  of  the  sacrament,  the  priest  was  to  communicate 
in  both  kinds.  That  is,  the  laity  had  the  sacrament  in  its  full  efficacy, 
but  in  an  abridged  form;  while  the  celebrating  priest  had  it  entire,  in 
form  as  well  as  in  full  efficacy. 

The  new  custom  spread  rapidly  through  the  Church,  until  nothing  else 
was  recognized,  probably  before  the  bull  of  Honorius  III  made  this  the 
law  of  the  Church  as  well  as  custom.  No  serious  revolt  was  made  against 
the  innovation,  except  by  certain  heretical  or  revolutionary  sects,  until 
the  time  of  John  Hus.  It  was  while  he  was  at  Constance,  a  prisoner 
awaiting  condemnation,  that  the  people  of  Prag  demanded  the  sacra- 
ment in  both  kinds.  In  answer  to  this  the  Council  of  Constance  passed  a 
decree  authoritatively  excluding  the  laity  from  the  cup.  The  decree 
is  dated  June  15,  1415.  The  following  6th  of  July  Hus  was  burned. 

In  this  we  have  an  example  of  the  way  in  which  human  institutions, 
religious  or  civil,  are  changed.  There  is  first  the  coming  of  some  new 
conception,  changing  the  attitude  of  men  to  some  rite  or  ceremony. 
This  changed  attitude  suggests,  seems  to  make  necessary,  some  change  in 
the  form  of  the  rite.  The  change  is  at  first  timidly  made  by  the  few, 
then  by  more,  then  by  all.  At  first  it  has  no  expressed  sanction,  it  is 
simply  a  custom;  after  a  time  the  custom  is  questioned  and  then  it  is 
made  a  law.  If  it  be  an  ecclesiastical  custom  or  law,  it  is  at  first  regarded 
as  something  that  is,  on  the  whole,  a  good  and  useful  expedient;  soon 
it  gets  to  be  considered  a  matter  of  supposed  divine  obligation,  for  the 
neglect  of  which  men  ought  to  be  burned  or  States  torn  asunder.  That 
this  was  true  in  the  case  of  the  exclusion  of  the  laity  from  the  cup,  is  shown 
by  the  decree  of  the  Council  of  Constance.1 

The  withholding  of  the  cup  was  what  Luther  called  the  first  captivity 
of  the  Eucharist.  The  second  captivity  was  of  less  importance:  it  was 

1  Adopted  at  Session  XIII,  June  15,  1415:  Item  ipsa  sancta  synodus  decernit 
et  dedarat  .  .  .  sub  poena  excommunicationis,  ut  effectualiter  puniant  eos  contra 
hoc  decretum  excedentes,  qui  communicando  populum  sub  utraque  specie  panis  et 
nini  exhortati  fuerint  et  sic  faciendum  esse  docuerint.  Mansi,  27:  728. 


122  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

the  requirement  that  the  faithful  should  believe,  not  only  that  the  body 
of  Christ  is  essentially  and  truly  present  in  the  bread  and  wine,  but  also 
that  the  bread  itself  is  not  essentially  present.  In  other  words,  Luther 
wished  the  people  to  be  free  to  hold  either  transubstantiation  or  consub- 
stantiation,  while  the  Church  authorities  insisted  that  they  should  hold 
to  transubstantiation  alone.  A  third  captivity  of  the  Eucharist,  and 
the  worst  of  all,  was  the  perversion  of  its  meaning  and  uses.  What  its 
proper  use  is  he  explains.  The  mass  he  says,  is  properly  nothing  but  the 
words  of  Christ,  Take,  eat,  etc.,  as  if  he  had  said:  "0  man,  thou  sinner 
condemned,  out  of  the  simple,  gratuitous  love  with  which  I  love  thee, 
the  Father  of  mercies  so  willing,  I  promise  thee,  in  these  words,  without 
any  merit  or  vow  on  thy  part,  remission  of  all  thy  sins  and  life  eternal. 
And  that  you  may  most  fully  rely  on  my  irrevocable  promise,  I  will  give 
you  my  body  and  will  pour  out  my  blood,  being  about  to  confirm  the 
promise  by  my  death,  and  to  leave  both  my  body  and  my  blood  for  a  sign 
and  memorial  of  the  promise.  As  oft  as  you  shall  come  to  the  Supper, 
remember  me,  declare  and  praise  my  love  and  kindness  to  you  and  give 
thanks. "  From  which,  said  Luther,  you  see  that  nothing  is  needed  for 
the  people  in  the  mass  but  faith,  which  relies  firmly  on  the  promise, 
believes  that  Christ  is  trustworthy  in  his  words,  and  does  not 
doubt  that  these  great  blessings  have  been  given  to  it.  When 
there  is  such  faith,  presently  follows  the  sweetest  affection  of  the 
heart,  by  which  the  soul  is  enlarged  and  strengthened,  so  that  the 
man  is  drawn  to  Christ,  the  bountiful  and  free  giver,  and  thus 
becomes  a  new  man.  This  mass,  which  brought  blessedness  to 
faith,  and  was  of  no  force  where  faith  was  not,  he  would  substitute 
for  the  mass  that  was  supposed  to  have  virtue  in  itself,  which 
might  be  bought  and  might  avail  for  many  things,  a  sort  of  spiritual 
merchandise. 

Passing  from  the  eucharist,  Luther  next  took  up  the  subject  of  bap- 
tism, which  the  popular  Church  teaching  had  robbed  of  its  power. 
Baptism,  as  the  other  sacraments,  was  intended  as  a  pledge  of  the  faith- 
fulness of  Christ,  as  a  guaranty  that  he  would  do  whatever  was  promised 
in  it.  In  baptism  had  been  promised  regeneration  and  forgiveness  of 
sins;  this  promise  becomes  operative  and  efficacious  to  all  who,  in  being 
baptized,  or  in  afterwards  recalling  the  fact  of  their  baptism,  believe 
that  promise.  It  is  not  the  baptism  alone,  or  the  promise  alone,  or  the 
faith  alone,  but  the  baptism  and  the  promise  and  the  promise  believed. 
The  act  of  baptism  occurs  but  once,  but  a  man  ought  to  be  continually 
and  always  baptized  by  faith — that  is,  the  efficacy  of  the  sacrament  is 
renewed  as  often  as  we  recall  it,  and  believe  the  promise  of  Christ  made 
in  it.  This  blessed  use  of  baptism,  by  which,  the  grace  that  we  have 


THE  BULL  OF  EXCOMMUNICATION  123 

lost  by  sin  is  restored,  had  been  forgotten  and  many  other  ways  of  remit- 
ting sin  had  been  substituted  for  that  one  that  Christ  had  instituted. 
Especially  had  the  Church,  following  the  lead  of  St.  Jerome,  put  penance 
in  the  place  of  baptism,  and  men  were  required  to  seek  through  painful 
works  of  satisfaction — pilgrimages,  vows,  fastings — what  they  already 
had  in  this  misunderstood  and  neglected  sacrament.  The  efficacy  of 
baptism  was  never  lost,  unless  a  man,  in  despair,  should  be  unwilling  to 
return  to  salvation;  it  was  possible,  indeed,  to  wander  for  a  time  away 
from  the  sign,  but  the  sign  did  not  on  that  account  lose  its  power.  And 
yet  baptism  itself  justifies  no  one,  but  only  faith  in  that  word  of  promise 
to  which  the  baptism  is  added.1  C 

It  would  serve  no  good  purpose  to  follow  Luther  through  his  discussion 
of  the  other  alleged  sacraments,  which  he  declares  to  be  no  true  sacra- 
ments; it  has  been  the  purpose  to  mention  only  those  things  that  show 
his  advance  toward  reformation.  Let  us  look  back  over  the  way  and  note 
the  steps  in  his  progress.  He  had  left  behind  him  the  doctrine  of  papal 
infallibility,  and  the  exclusive  right  of  Popes  and  councils  to  interpret 
the  Scripture;  he  had  made  the  point  that  every  Christian  is  divinely 
taught,  and  that  the  duty  of  reforming  the  Church  belongs  to  every 
Christian;  and  yet  he  held  that  the  judgment  of  the  Church  ought  to  be 
sought  in  a  general  council  to  be  called  by  Christian  princes,  as  the 
representatives  of  the  Christian  people.  He  had  given  up  the  doctrine 
of  clerical  celibacy,  and  insisted  on  the  right  and  expediency  of  the  mar- 
riage of  priests;  he  asserted  the  right  to  differ  on  certain  speculative 
points  about  the  eucharist,  and  he  demanded  the  cup  for  the  laity.  His 
views  of  baptism  logically  excluded  the  sacrament  of  penance;  and,  there- 
fore, of  the  three  sacraments  that  he  was  willing  to  allow,  there  actually 
remained  baptism  and  the  Lord's  supper;  and  these  had  no  other  efficacy 
than  that  given  them  by  faith.  They  were  the  Gospel  in  symbol,  and 
their  special  value  consisted  in  the  fact  that  they  declared  more  specif- 
ically and  impressively  what  the  preacher  declared  whenever  he  truly 
preached  the  Gospel.2 

These  two  treatises  were  speedily  followed  by  a  third,  on  the  "  Freedom 
of  a  Christian  Man, "  which  is  devoted  to  the  exposition  of  this  twofold 
thesis:  "A  Christian  man  is  the  most  free  lord  of  all,  and  subject  to 
none;  a  Christian  man  is  the  most  dutiful  servant  of  all,  and  subject  to 

1  Baptismus  neminem  justificat,  nee  ulli  prodest;  sed  fides  in  verbum  promisionis, 
cui  additum  baptismus. 

2  In  his  sermon  on  preparation  for  death  (1519)  Luther  says:  "In  the  sacra- 
ments, Christ,  the  Lord  your  God,  speaks  with  you,  through  the  priest.     You 
ought  not  to  feel  that  the  work  or  the  word  which  you  hear  is  man's.     For  God 
himself  promises  you  all  things  through  that  word,  which  we  have  spoken  of 
Christ.     And  he  wished  the  sacraments  to  be  pledges  of  his  fidelity,"  etc.  LOL, 
3:  465. 


124  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

everyone."1  A  man  becomes  justified,  free  and  a  true  Christian,  says 
Luther,  through  the  word  of  God.  The  soul  can  do  without  every- 
thing, except  the  word  of  God,  without  which  none  of  its  wants  are  pro- 
vided for.  But,  having  the  word,  it  is  rich  and  wants  for  nothing;  since 
that  is  the  word  of  life,  of  truth,  of  light,  of  peace,  of  justification,  of 
salvation,  of  joy,  of  liberty,  of  wisdom,  of  virtue,  of  grace,  of  glory,  and 
of  every  good  thing.  As  the  soul  needs  the  word  alone  for  life  and  justi- 
fication, so  it  is  justified  by  faith  alone  and  not  by  any  works.  By  no 
outward  work  or  labor  can  the  inward  man  be  at  all  justified,  made  free 
and  saved.  A  right  faith  hi  Christ  is  an  incomparable  treasure,  and 
suffices  for  everything.  But  if  he  has  no  need  of  works,  neither  has  he 
any  need  of  the  law — the  law  is  not  made  for  a  righteous  man.  This  is 
Christian  liberty,  not  that  one  should  be  careless  and  lead  a  bad  life, 
but  that  no  one  should  need  the  law  or  works  for  justification  and  salva- 
tion. Faith  unites  the  soul  to  Christ,  as  the  wife  to  the  husband,  so 
that  whatever  Christ  possesses  the  believing  soul  may  take  to  itself  and 
boast  of  as  its  own.  His  kingly  and  priestly  dignities  are  thus  imparted 
and  communicated  to  every  believer — we  are  kings  and  the  freest  of  all 
men,  but  also  priests  forever,  worthy  to  appear  before  God,  to  pray  for 
others  and  to  teach  one  another  mutually  the  things  that  are  of  God. 

But  the  man  justified  and  made  free  by  faith  still  remains  in  this  mor- 
tal life  upon  earth;  hence  he  cannot  take  his  ease,  but  must  do  good  works, 
out  of  disinterested  love  to  the  service  of  God.  Good  works  do  not  make 
a  good  man,  but  a  good  man  does  good  works.  We  do  not  then  reject 
good  works;  nay,  we  embrace  them  and  teach  them  hi  the  highest  degree. 
Though  the  justified  man  is  free  from  all  good  works,  yet  he  ought  to 
empty  himself  of  this  liberty,  take  on  himself  the  form  of  a  servant, 
be  found  hi  fashion  as  a  man,  serve,  help  and  in  every  way  act  toward 
his  neighbor,  as  he  sees  that  God  through  Christ  has  acted  and  is  acting 
toward  him.  I  will  therefore  give  myself,  as  a  sort  of  Christ,  to  my 
neighbor,  as  Christ  has  given  himself  to  me.  A  Christian  man  does  not 
live  hi  himself,  but  in  Christ  and  his  neighbor,  else  he  is  no  Christian: 
in  Christ  by  faith,  in  his  neighbor  by  love. 

Many,  says  Luther  hi  conclusion,  when  they  hear  of  this  liberty  of 
faith,  turn  it  into  an  occasion  of  license — they  show  themselves  free  men 
and  Christians  only  by  contempt  and  reprehension  of  ceremonies,  of 
traditions,  of  human  laws;  as  if  they  were  Christians  merely  because  they 
eat  flesh  when  others  fast.  The  Christian  must  walk  in  the  middle 

1  It  is  characteristic  of  Luther  that  he  appeals,  for  proof  of  the  truth  of  this 
paradox,  not  to  Jesus,  who  first  taught  it,  but  to  Paul,  1  Cor.  9:  19;  Rom.  13:  8. 
He  quotes  profusely  from  the  Scriptures  throughout  the  discussion,  but  of  sixty- 
five  direct  citations,  only  twelve  are  from  the  Gospels,  while  forty-two  are  from 
the  Pauline  epistles  and  Hebrews,  and  eleven  are  from  the  Old  Testament. 


THE  BULL  OF  EXCOMMUNICATION  125 

path.    We  do  not  contemn  ceremonies,  but  contemn  the  belief  in  works. 

In  this  treatise,1  which  has  been  scrupulously  summarized  in  his  very 
words,  Luther  for  the  first  time  set  forth  distinctly,  in  a  writing  for  popular 
instruction,  what  afterwards  came  to  be  known  as  the  formal  and  the 
material  principles  of  the  Reformation.  The  formal  principle  is  the  office 
of  the  Scriptures,  as  the  supreme  authority  in  religion  and  the  means  by 
which  the  faith  of  the  believer  is  wrought.  The  material  principle  is 
the  justification  of  the  believer  through  faith  in  the  promises  of  God, 
grounded  on  the  merits  of  Christ,  and  not  through  his  own  good  works. 
It  is  sometimes  asserted  that  the  formal  principle  was  an  afterthought 
on  Luther's  part:  that  he  began  his  work  as  a  reformer  with  assertion 
of  the  material  principle,  justification  by  faith,  and  was  driven  to  the 
adoption  of  the  formal  principle  in  the  course  of  his  debate  with  Eck 
at  Leipzig,  after  having  vainly  attempted  to  justify  his  teachings  from 
the  writings  of  the  Fathers.  But  this  cannot  be  said  to  be  a  fair  deduc- 
tion from  the  facts.  The  explicit  statement  of  the  supreme  authority  of 
the  Scriptures  is  found  as  early  as  the  reply  to  Prierias,2  and  the  principle 
is  certainly  implicit,  though  not  formally  asserted,  in  the  Theses. 

Of  all  the  writings  that  the  Reformation  produced,  there  is  none  that 
shows  deeper  penetration  into  the  meaning  of  the  Gospel  than  this  treatise 
on  Christian  liberty — none  that  is  more  tender,  spiritual,  edifying. 
It  shows  us  a  side  of  Luther's  character  that  we  shall  too  seldom  see  as 
we  pursue  our  theme,  and  that  we  shall  therefore  do  well  frequently  to 
recall.  At  his  best,  by  virtue  of  his  mystical  tendency,  he  was  capable  of 
understanding  the  profoundest,  the  loftiest,  the  subtlest  teachings  of 
Jesus  and  Paul,  and  of  setting  them  forth  with  a  simplicity,  clearness,  em- 
phasis and  raciness  that  no  other  writer  of  his  generation  ever  approached. 
It  is  true  that  he  was  far  more  influenced  by  Paul  than  by  Jesus,  but 
in  this  case  that  fact  is  without  significance,  for  hi  this  case  Jesus  and  Paul 
are  at  one.  As  a  summary  of  the  fundamental  principles  of  the  Gospel, 
nothing  in  the  whole  range  of  Christian  literature  surpasses  it.  It  is 
one  of  the  imperishable  treasures  of  our  faith. 

These  three  treatises  have  been  called  by  some  "Luther's  three  classics," 
by  others  the  " primary  works"  of  the  Reformation.  They  are  the  most 
important  of  all  his  writings,  and  set  forth  principles  from  which  he  never 
afterwards  departed,  save  in  minor  details.  They  were  written  before  he 
had  formally  broken  with  the  Papacy  and  before  he  had  become 
the  recognized  leader  of  a  sect  or  party.  They  therefore  indicate 
the  trend  of  his  freely  developing  thoughts,  and  what  he  taught 

1  Von  der  Freiheit  eines  Christenmenschen.  Walch,  19:  986  seq.;  LDS,  27: 
173  seq.;  LOL,  4:  206  seq.  Luther's  letter  to  the  Pope,  De  Wette,  1:  497.  English 
version  of  both,  Wace  and  Bucheim,  95-137. 

8  It  is  the  second  of  his  fundamenta.     LOL,  2:  7. 


126  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

in  them  became,  with  no  material  alteration  or  addition,  a  constituent 
part  of  developed  Protestantism.  If  there  is  any  exception  to  this  sweep- 
ing statement,  it  is  in  relation  to  Luther's  later  ideas  regarding  faith  and 
the  sacraments.  It  happened  with  him  as  it  often  happens  with  reform- 
ers: he  early  saw  many  things  clearly  in  themselves,  but  he  did  not  at 
first  see  clearly  their  relations  to  other  things;  so  that  he  was  in  the  end 
compelled  to  modify  and  reshape  his  new  convictions,  to  make  them  fit 
parts  of  the  old  system  that  he  retained.  In  some  cases  he  did  not  see 
the  whole  truth;  in  other  cases  he  saw  the  truth,  but  painfully  realized 
that  he  was  forced  to  do,  not  what  was  ideally  best,  but  what  was  only 
best  in  the  circumstances.  In  judging  him  at  this  distance,  and  with 
fuller  light,  we  have  need  of  caution  and  charity:  we  see  the  truth  more 
clearly  than  he  saw  it,  but  his  difficulties  we  see  dimly,  or  not  at  all. 

These  earlier  writings  of  Luther,  with  their  fervid  eloquence,  came  from 
a  brain  and  conscience  fired  by  an  elemental  passion  for  truth  and  liberty 
of  the  spirit.  He  had  yet  to  learn  his  trade  as  practical  reformer.  We 
shall  find  a  great  contrast,  in  some  respects,  between  these  writings  and 
those  of  his  later  years,  when  experience  had  taught  him  wisdom,  or  at 
least  caution.  In  his  first  assault  on  Rome,  in  the  name  of  freedom  and 
pure  spirituality,  and  the  inner  uplift  thus  given  to  men,  Luther  began  a 
work  that  promised  to  revolutionize  the  world.  In  his  practical  embodi- 
ment of  his  ideas  in  religious  institutions  he  was  led  by  the  irresistible 
logic  of  events  and  necessity  to  a  championship  of  authority  and  of  the 
letter,  that  brought  Protestantism  again  under  the  dominion  of  the  very 
way  of  thinking  from  which  it  had  sought  emancipation.  But  for  the 
present  nothing  of  this  appears.  Luther  stands  in  the  year  1520  as  the 
rebel  against  all  outward  authority  in  religion,  the  asserter  of  the  utmost 
liberty  of  the  individual  soul  in  the  things  of  the  spirit,  the  advocate 
of  the  original  principles  of  the  Christian  evangel.  Most  of  the  pre- 
Lutheran  demands  for  reform  were  like  the  first  step  of  his  own :  a  demand 
for  the  abolition  of  certain  abuses.  But  there  were  a  few  who  saw 
deeper,  and  knew  that  the  real  ground  of  the  corruptions  of  the  Church 
was  its  perversion  of  the  simple  primitive  Gospel  of  salvation  by  faith  in 
Christ  into  the  complicated  system  of  sacramental  grace  and  priestly 
hierarchy  known  as  the  Roman  Catholic  Church;  and  who  knew,  there- 
fore, that  the  only  reform  capable  of  truly  reforming  anything  was 
a  return  to  the  doctrine  and  practice  of  the  apostles.  This  was  now 
becoming  clear  to  Luther,  and  as  it  became  clear  to  him  he  was  pro- 
claiming it  to  all  Germany — indeed,  to  all  Europe.  But  would  he  be 
any  more  successful  in  realizing  this  ideal  than  those  who  had  preceded 
him?  This  was  a  question  that  only  time  could  answer. 

While  he  was  taking  his  position  of  decided  opposition  to  Rome,  the 


THE  BULL  OF  EXCOMMUNICATION  127 

papal  court  had  already  decided  its  course  toward  Luther.  The  "Ad- 
dress to  the  German  Nobility"  was  published  in  June;  on  the  15th  of 
the  same  month,  the  decree  of  excommunication  was  passed  in  Consistory. 
This  result  was  brought  about  largely  by  the  influence  of  Eck  and  Cajetan. 
It  must  have  come;  it  could  not  have  been  much  longer  delayed,  certainly 
not  after  the  publication  of  the  "Address,"  which  was  no  uncertain 
declaration  of  war;  but  it  was  due  to  the  representations  of  Eck  and  Caje- 
tan that  it  came  when  it  did.  They  saw  clearly,  and  made  the  papal 
court  see,  that  further  delay  was  useless — the  Pope  must  crush  Luther  or 
confess  that  he  was  himself  in  the  wrong.  Leo  was  pushed  on  by  that 
calm,  resistless  sequence  of  events  which  we  call  the  logic  of  consequences; 
he  had  gone  so  far  that  he  must  go  farther.  He  is  represented  as  repent- 
ing that  he  had  ever  had  anything  to  do  with  the  affair,  that  he  had  not 
left  the  monks  to  fight  out  their  own  battles  and  settle  their  own  dis- 
putes; especially  did  he  repent  that  he  had  issued  the  Brief  on  indulgences.1 
His  repentance  came  too  late.  It  was  not  cautious  men,  fearing  to  ad- 
vance, but  excited  partisans  who  impatiently  blamed  his  hesitation, 
that  were  uttering  the  voice  of  destiny.  Nothing  was  clearer  than  that 
the  bull  ought  to  be  issued  at  once,  but  whether  it  would  be  any  remedy 
for  the  evils  threatening  was  an  entirely  different  thing.  At  length 
the  draft  prepared  by  Cardinal  Pietro  Acolti  was  accepted  and  pub- 
lished.2 

Considerable  pains  were  taken  with  the  composition  of  this  document, 
not  only  to  set  forth  a  sufficient  justification  for  the  condemnation  of 
Luther,  but  to  give  it  a  strong  flavor  of  Scripture  as  well  as  to  make  it  a 
good  specimen  of  what  was  reckoned  elegant  latinity  by  the  Italian 
Humanists.  The  exordium,  in  particular,  was  much  admired  in  papal 
circles  as  a  fine  example  of  sacred  eloquence.  It  began  with  a  quota- 
tion from  Psalm  74:22  (from  the  Vulgate,  of  course),  "Arise  0  Lord,  and 
judge  thy  cause;  be  mindful  of  thy  reproaches,  with  which  the  foolish 
reproach  thee  daily, "  and  proceeded  with  a  like  invocation  of  Peter,  Paul 
and  the  whole  congregation  of  the  saints.  The  Pope  then  tells  how  he 
has  been  distressed  by  the  teachers  of  false  doctrines,  especially  in  Ger- 
many, for  which  country  he  and  his  predecessors  had  always  entertained 
the  highest  affection,  and  cites  forty-one  propositions  from  the  writings 

1  "Leo  repented  himself  of  whatsoever  he  had  done  in  these  occurrences,  and 
most  of  all  of  the  Bull  of  indulgences  sent  into  Germany,  thinking  it  would  have 
been  better  to  let  the  Friars  dispute  among  themselves,  and  to  keep  himself  neutral 
and  reverenced  by  both  parties,  than  by  declaring  himself  for  one  to  constrain 
the  other  to  alienate  themselves  from  him."     Sarpi,  p.  9. 

2  The  original  text  of  the  bull  Exsurge  Domini,  is  printed  in  LOL,  2:  259,  Ger- 
desius,  Historia  Reformationis,  Monurnenta,  1:  129  seq.;  Raynaldus,  12:  289  seq.; 
Schaff,    6:    233  seq.      A  German  version  by  Hutten  with  notes  and  postscript, 
is  in  Walch,    15:  1427  seq.;  and  an  English  version  may  be  found  in  Jacobs, 
Appendix. 


128  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

of  Luther,  prohibiting  any  and  all  to  teach  or  defend  them,  as  "heretical 
or  scandalous  or  false  or  offensive  to  pious  ears  or  seductive  to  simple 
minds  and  opposed  to  Catholic  truth."  Luther's  books,  as  containing 
these  errors,  are  condemned,  the  faithful  are  forbidden  to  read  them, 
and  they  are  to  be  publicly  burned.  The  Pope  recounts  his  repeated 
attempts  to  recall  Luther  from  his  errors,  and  exhorts  him  and  his  followers 
yet  to  repent  and  return  to  the  bosom  of  the  Church,  granting  them  sixty 
days  to  recant — failing  which,  they  are  to  be  condemned  as  heretics  and 
handed  over  to  the  secular  arm  for  punishment.  All  ecclesiastics,  es- 
pecially those  in  Germany,  are  commanded  to  announce  these  censures 
in  the  churches,  on  pain  of  themselves  incurring  like  penalty;  and  all 
who  should  hinder  the  publication  of  the  bull  should  be  ipso  facto  excom- 
municate. Copies  of  the  bull  should  be  posted  on  the  doors  of  the  Cathe- 
drals of  Brandenburg,  Meissen  and  Merseburg,  that  Luther  and  his  fol- 
lowers might  not  plead  ignorance. 

The  bull  had  been  expected  by  all,  wished  for  by  some  and  dreaded  by 
many.  There  had  been  extravagant  notions  of  what  would  be  the  effect 
of  it,  and  in  Catholic  circles  there  was  general  disappointment  at  its 
effect.  Luther  had  begun  his  work  as  reformer  with  no  idea  of  leaving 
the  Roman  Church,  the  Church  of  his  fathers,  his  own  Church.  He 
did  not  leave  the  Church — he  was  thrust  out.  Finding  himself  in  this 
plight,  his  teachings  rejected,  himself  under  the  ban,  he  could  do  one  of 
two  things:  abandon  all  that  he  had  held  to  be  truth  and  abjectly  sue  for 
pardon  and  restoration,  with  a  promise  to  remain  forever  silent,  or  accept 
the  situation,  and  proceed  to  live  his  life  and  do  his  work.  Of  course  he 
chose  the  latter.  The  former  course  would  have  been  too  base  and  pusil- 
lanimous for  even  Erasmus.  And  so,  instead  of  closing  the  controversy 
and  restoring  the  peace  and  unity  of  the  Church,  the  bull  proved  to  be 
the  needful  condition  for  the  further  development  of  the  Lutheran 
revolt.  The  first  and  most  obvious  effect  was  to  make  it  certain  that  the 
contest  must  go  on.  Luther  was  already  committed;  there  was  no  pos- 
sibility of  honorable  or  safe  retreat  for  him;  and  the  bull  committed  the 
Pope  in  the  same  way.  Before  there  was  controversy,  there  must  now 
be  collision. 

Before  the  actual  experiment,  no  one  could  tell  how  much  danger 
Luther  would  be  in  from  his  condemnation  by  the  papal  court.  It  had 
been  little  more  than  twenty  years  since  Savonarola  had  been  excom- 
municated by  Alexander  VI,  and  the  end  of  that  conflict  was  that  the 
reformer  was  burned.  It  might  have  been  inferred  that  a  similar  fate 
awaited  the  excommunicated  Luther,  and  there  was  at  least  enough 
uncertainty  in  the  case  to  cause  him  and  his  friends  grave  anxiety. 
Neither  his  friends  nor  his  enemies  were  then  in  a  condition  to  realize 


THE  BULL  OF  EXCOMMUNICATION  129 

how  different  the  conditions  were  in  Germany  from  those  in  Florence  when 
the  bold  preacher  went  down  in  his  contest  with  the  Papacy,  nor  could 
they  tell  how  far  Europe  had  advanced  in  its  movement  away  from 
medieval  conceptions.  A  bull  of  excommunication  had  once  been 
final,  about  as  absolute  and  compelling  as  an  imperial  edict  of  Augustus 
or  Tiberias.  But  it  was  now  to  be  demonstrated  that  the  time  of  such 
absolute  supremacy  had  passed.  The  change  had  been  brought  about 
by  the  gradual  working  of  unnoticed  or  unconsidered  causes. 

In  the  first  place,  the  conduct  of  the  Popes  themselves  had  had  much 
to  do  with  it.  The  reverence  and  obedience  given  them  was  due  to  the 
fact  that  as  the  head  and  representative  of  the  Church  a  Pope  spoke 
for  Christ  and  under  the  guidance  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  So  speaking,  he 
must  speak  wisely  and  justly.  Condemnation  carried  with  it  the  loss 
of  spiritual  privileges  on  earth  and  exclusion  from  heaven  hereafter; 
it  touched  all  that  was  dearest  in  the  life  and  hopes  of  man;  and  in  pro- 
portion to  its  awfulness  it  ought  to  be  reluctantly  and  carefully  spoken. 
To  condemn  thoughtlessly  or  from  prejudice,  or  to  accomplish  political 
or  personal  or  party  ends,  was  cruelty  and  outrage — it  was  to  use  the  power 
of  the  highest  and  holiest  in  the  interests  of  injustice  and  oppression. 
This  was  what  the  Popes  had  not  infrequently  done,  and  every  unjust 
bull  of  excommunication  was  treasured  up  in  the  memory  of  men  against 
the  Popes  and  the  Papacy.  Some  thought  that  Savonarola  had  died 
rather  for  his  fidelity  to  truth  than  for  heresy,  and  it  was  beginning  to  be 
believed  that  Hus  and  Jerome  of  Prag,  notwithstanding  their  condemna- 
tion by  Pope  and  council,  were  very  good,  sincere  Christians.  Even  if 
they  had  taught  errors,  they  were  not  errors  worthy  of  death,  and  when 
Popes  used  their  power  for  the  destruction  of  good  men,  there  must 
be  something  wrong  about  it. 

But  even  if  the  Popes  had  always  acted  with  due  consideration  and 
from  the  holiest  of  motives,  they  could  not  have  maintained  their  power. 
They  had  been  lifted  up  to  their  place  of  eminence  by  the  working  of 
general  causes,  and  they  were  being  lowered  by  the  working  of  forces 
independent  of  and  outside  themselves.  Christian  Europe  had  long 
been  compelled  to  act  as  a  unit.  It  had  to  maintain  a  death  struggle 
with  the  enemies  by  which  it  was  surrounded,  barbarism  and  heathenism 
on  the  North  and  East,  and  Mohammedanism  in  the  East  and  South. 
There  were  only  two  great  parties,  Christian  and  infidel.  Christendom 
was  held  together  by  a  common  danger  no  less  than  by  a  common  faith. 
There  had  been  local  and  national  jealousies  and  antagonisms,  but  they 
were  held  in  abeyance  by  the  fear  of  enemies  from  without.  The  one 
great  pressing  necessity  among  Christian  peoples  was  unity.  There 
was  one  civil  head,  the  Emperor,  and  one  head  of  the  Church,  the  Pope; 


130  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

but  the  especial  representative  of  Christian  unity  was  the  Pope.  When 
Christendom  became  powerful  and  its  enemies  on  all  sides  were  changed  to 
friends  or  ceased  to  be  so  greatly  feared,  the  outside  pressure  relaxed,  the 
necessity  for  unity  was  diminished,  and  room  was  made  for  the  growth 
of  national  interests  and  a  national  spirit.  As  unity  was  no  longer  the 
principal  interest,  the  Pope  lost  something  of  his  importance;  and  the 
loss  was  greater  and  more  marked  when,  from  any  cause,  the  Pope  favored 
one  nation  against  another.  From  1309  to  1377,  the  Papacy  held  its 
seat  at  Avignon  and  was  under  the  domination  of  France.  During  part 
of  that  time  England  and  France  were  at  war  with  each  other;  England 
could  not  yield  a  cheerful  obedience  to  a  Pope  controlled  by  the  enemy. 
From  1378  to  1409  there  were  two  Popes,  one  at  Avignon  and  the  other 
at  Rome.  The  nations  in  sympathy  with  France  obeyed  the  French 
Pope,  those  opposed  to  France  sided  with  the  Pope  at  Rome.  The 
division  was  according  to  national  affinities;  and  this  assertion  of  rational 
spirit,  occasioned  by  temporary  conditions,  was  prophetic.  It  was  an 
intimation  that,  when  conditions  of  antagonism  should  be  permanent, 
there  would  be  a  permanent  weakening,  and  at  last  the  utter  exhaustion, 
of  the  conception  of  one  holy  Christian  Empire,  in  spiritual  subjection 
to  the  Pope  as  the  vicar  of  Christ.  As  time  went  on,  the  necessity  for 
unity  became  progressively  lost,  and  the  national  spirit  progressively 
stronger — it  came  to  be  universal;  it  took  possession  even  of  the  Papacy, 
which  aspired  to  be  a  secular  power.  The  Pope  was  the  head  of  the 
Church,  and  also  an  Italian  prince;  and  the  problem  to  be  solved  was 
whether  men  could  be  in  subjection  to  the  Pope  as  the  vicar  of  Christ 
and  at  the  same  time  make  war  upon  him  as  a  national  ruler. 

Much  has  been  said  of  the  growth  in  Europe  of  the  secular  spirit  in 
opposition  to  the  ecclesiastical,  and  of  the  great  consequences  following 
It.  The  conditions  for  the  growth  of  that  spirit  have  been  indicated 
above.  In  the  time  of  Charlemagne  and  Otho  and  the  Holy  Roman 
Empire,  such  a  spirit  would  have  been  unnatural  and  ruinous — it  would 
have  made  the  Europe  and  the  civilization  of  to-day  impossible.  Divided 
and  mutually  hostile  Christian  States  would  have  been  an  easy  prey  to 
fierce  Moslems  and  fiercer  Hungarians.  But  in  the  beginning  of  the 
sixteenth  century,  nations  might  indulge  their  national  jealousies  and 
yet  survive.  Accordingly,  there  was  then  a  bitter  national  rivalry;  the 
national  spirit  was  intense.  It  was  strong  in  England  and  in  France, 
but  strongest  in  the  peoples  that  were  brought  into  close  relations  by 
their  connection  with  the  Empire.  The  pride  of  blood,  the  desire  for 
local  self-government,  especially  resented  any  domination  from  without. 
The  Italians  hated  the  Germans,  the  Germans  hated  the  Italians;  and 
both  hated  the  Spaniards,  the  great,  aggressive,  conquering  people  of  the 


THE  BULL  OF  EXCOMMUNICATION  131 

time.  The  cultured  Italians,  shining  in  the  light  of  the  Renaissance, 
spoke  contemptuously  of  the  "stupid,  drunken  Germans. "  The  Germans 
retaliated  with  "lying,  avaricious,  extortionate  Italians";  with  all  people 
it  was  the  "cold,  proud,  domineering  Spaniard."  In  the  midst  of  such 
pronounced  race  jealousies,  it  would  have  been  difficult  for  any  Pope, 
however  prudent  and  impartial,  to  command  the  confidence  of  all; 
national  prejudices  were  stronger  than  ecclesiastical  allegiance.  These 
prejudices  the  national  spirit  and  antagonism  had  rapidly  developed  since 
the  days  of  Savonarola,  and  they  were  never  stronger  than  in  the  first 
half  of  the  sixteenth  century. 

A  strong  national  spirit  was  but  one  of  the  characteristics  of  the  times. 
The  widespread  revolt  against  the  reign  of  authority  was  another;  this 
weakened  the  force  of  all  established  institutions.  The  right  of  men  to 
think  for  themselves  was  emphasized,  and  had  been  pushed  so  far  as  to 
lead  to  the  questioning  of  the  foundations  of  Christianity  itself.  Every- 
thing must  be  subjected  to  the  test  of  reason;  the  sanction  of  custom 
counted  but  little;  was  the  custom  itself  well-grounded?  Men  asked, 
Does  the  Pope  have  authority  to  issue  any  bull  of  excommunication? 
And,  if  he  has,  was  this  particular  bull  rightly  issued?  There  was  no 
clear  answer  to  the  first  question,  and  the  second  appealed  to  the  judg- 
ment of  the  people.  There  was  no  tribunal  universally  recognized  to 
give  that  judgment:  some  looked  to  the  papal  court,  some  to  a  general 
council,  some  would  submit  to  neither.  As,  in  the  unsettled  state  of 
things,  a  papal  bull  must  submit  itself  to  questioning,  its  execution  was 
by  no  means  a  matter  of  course. 

This  is  the  state  of  things  as  it  appears  to  us  looking  back  upon  it;  at 
the  time  it  did  not  seem  so  plain.  First  of  all,  Luther  himself  could  not 
be  certain  as  to  what  fate  awaited  him,  or  what  course  it  might  be  best 
for  him  to  pursue.  Some  thought  that  he  might  temporize,  seek  a  sus- 
pension of  the  sentence,  possibly  a  withdrawal.  Charles  von  Miltitz 
came  forth  again  as  conciliator  and  peacemaker.  In  his  previous  nego- 
tiations he  had  not  been  conspicuously  successful;  his  efforts  had, at  best, 
only  postponed  the  catastrophe,  and  this  chiefly  by  favoring  circum- 
stances; but  he  was  one  of  those  men  who  cannot  be  discouraged  by 
failure  or  difficulties.  When  everyone  else  saw  that  he  was  accomplish- 
ing little,  he  thought  that  the  whole  matter  was  about  to  be  adjusted — 
he  was  a  diplomatist,  and  what  might  not  be  accomplished  by  diplomacy? 
Even  he  saw  that  the  case  had  been  complicated  and  made  more  diffi- 
cult by  the  bull  of  excommunication,  but  he  did  not  despair.  He  was 
not  a  man  of  abundant  or  varied  resources:  he  would  try  the  same  plans 
that  he  had  already  tried — that  is,  he  would  induce  Luther  to  write 
another  letter  to  the  Pope.  The  new  thing  that  Luther  was  to  say  was, 


132  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

that  he  had  never  said  or  done  anything  against  Leo  personally;  and  he 
was  to  repeat  the  promise  that  he  would  be  silent,  if  the  other  side  was 
silent.  At  the  same  time,  the  Elector  Frederick  was  to  second  the  move- 
ment, by  thanking  the  Pope  for  the  golden  rose  and  otherwise  showing 
good  will.  The  meeting  between  Miltitz  and  Luther  took  place  at  Lich- 
tenberg,  and  the  plan  was  agreed  upon  on  October  llth.  Luther  had 
already  seen  the  bull,  but  that  the  letter  might  not  seem  to  have  been 
forced  from  him  by  the  Pope's  action,  it  was  dated  September  6th. 
Luther  wrote  to  Spalatin  that  he  had  no  difficulty  in  saying  what  Miltitz 
asked  him  to  say,  because  it  was  true;  he  would  write  without  delay. 
If,  said  he,  it  shall  turn  out  as  we  hope,  well;  if  otherwise,  it  will  still 
be  well.  We  scarcely  know  how  to  interpret  Luther's  deliberate  and 
confidentially  expressed  opinions  in  this  matter.  It  may  help  to  remem- 
ber that  it  was  an  age  of  diplomacy,  and  that  diplomacy  meant  decep- 
tion. As  men  used  deception  so  habitually  in  dealing  with  their  enemies, 
they  easily  used  it  hi  dealing  with  friends,  or  even  with  themselves. 
To  antedate  a  letter  for  a  purpose  was  at  least  diplomatic;  to  make  a 
statement  to  the  Pope  that  he  would  understand  in  one  way  and  Luther 
in  another  was  also  diplomatic.  So  far  as  this  piece  of  diplomacy  was 
concerned,  it  was  not  creditable  to  either  the  judgment  or  the  morals 
of  the  parties  engaged  in  it.  It  was  not  merely  discreditable,  it  was 
ridiculous:  there  was  the  willingness  to  deceive,  but  not  the  ability. 
But  whatever  Luther  in  his  simplicity  might  have  been  willing  to  do, 
there  was  no  deception  or  ambiguity  in  what  he  actually  did.1 

He  wrote,  in  all,  three  letters  to  the  Pope:  two  of  these  we  have  already 
considered,  and  in  both  he  was  sufficiently  humble;  indeed,  to  us  who 
have  never  known  the  awe-inspiring  influence  of  high  rank  and  office, 
he  appears  almost  abject  in  his  self-abasement  and  humiliation.  The 
third  letter  is  of  a  different  sort.  It  is  a  very  remarkable  letter;  every- 
thing about  it  is  noteworthy.  The  salutation  makes  us  pause :  "Martin 
Luther  to  Leo  X,  bishop  of  Rome,  sends  greeting  in  Jesus  Christ." 
Among  the  monsters  of  the  age  with  whom  he  had  been  making  war 
he  had  been  forced  to  think  of  Leo,  because  the  notion  had  gotten  abroad 
that  he  was  making  war  upon  the  Pope  personally.  He  had  indeed 
been  compelled  to  appeal  from  him  to  a  general  council,  but  he  had 
never  been  so  far  alienated  from  the  Pope  himself  as  not  to  be  able  to 
pray  God's  blessing  upon  him.  He  could  almost  despise  and  triumph 
over  his  enemies  who  strove  to  frighten  him  by  the  greatness  of  the 
Pope's  name.  He  was  not  prompted  by  fear  to  write;  he  sought  to 
free  himself  from  the  unjust  charge  of  attacking  the  Pope  in  person. 
So  far  from  this  being  true,  he  had  never  spoken  of  the  Pope  except  in 

iDe  Wette,  1:497  seq.;  Wace  and  Bucheim,  95  seq. 


THE  BULL  OF  EXCOMMUNICATION  133 

the  highest  terms.  He  had  called  him  Daniel  in  Babylon.  He  was 
not  such  a  simpleton  as  to  attack  a  man  whom  everybody  was  praising — 
nay,  he  did  not  even  abuse  those  whom  everyone  was  abusing;  he  was 
so  conscious  of  his  own  sin  that  he  could  not  cast  the  first  stone.  It  was 
not  the  morals  of  men  that  concerned  him,  but  their  impious  and  hurt- 
ful doctrines  that  he  spoke  against.  In  this  he  followed  the  example 
of  Christ  and  the  apostles,  and  could  not  change.  He  justified  his 
sharpness:  of  what  use  is  salt  if  it  does  not  smart,  or  of  the  sword  if 
it  does  not  cut?  Cursed  be  he  who  does  the  Lord's  work  slightly. 

He  said  nothing  against  the  Pope's  private  character.  "But, "  said 
he,  "that  See  of  yours,  which  is  called  the  Roman  Curia,  is  more  corrupt 
than  any  Babylon,  and  neither  you  nor  anyone  else  can  deny  it. "  He 
had  detested  its  impiety  and  been  impatient  that  the  people  had  been 
deceived  by  the  false  use  that  had  been  made  of  the  Pope's  name  and 
of  the  Roman  Church.  He  knew  that  the  evils  of  Rome  were  too  great 
to  be  corrected  by  one  man;  he  did  not  attempt  to  reform  it,  but  only 
to  render  it  as  little  hurtful  as  possible.  It  grieved  him  that  the  Church 
"formerly  the  holiest  of  all  had  become  the  most  licentious  of  robbers, 
the  kingdom  of  sin,  of  death,  of  hell."  In  the  universal  corruption, 
the  Pope  was  helpless.  He  was  like  a  lamb  among  wolves,  like  Daniel 
among  the  lions,  like  Ezekiel  dwelling  among  the  scorpions;  what  could 
he,  one  alone,  do  among  these  monsters?  What  could  three  or  four 
learned  and  holy  Cardinals  do?  The  Roman  Curia  was  on  trial,  and 
the  wrath  of  God  was  coming  upon  it  to  the  end.  His  only  feeling 
toward  the  Pope  was  one  of  pity,  and  sorrow  that  he  should  be  Pope 
in  such  an  age;  he  was  worthy  of  better  times.  Men  boasted  of  the 
Pope's  glory,  which  was  no  glory  at  all.  He  wished  that  the  Pope  might 
lay  it  aside  and  live  as  a  private  priest  on  his  ancestral  estate.  "For 
what, "  said  he,  "0  Leo,  dost  thou  do  in  the  Curia,  except  that  the  more 
wicked  and  execrable  a  man  is,  the  more  he  uses  thy  name  for  destroy- 
ing the  riches  and  souls  of  men;  for  multiplying  crime,  for  crushing  out 
faith  and  truth,  and  opposing  the  whole  Church  of  God.  Is  it  not 
true  that  under  the  whole  heavens  there  is  nothing  more  corrupt, 
pestilential  and  hateful  than  the  Roman  Curia?"  In  making  war  upon 
it  he  was  doing  the  Pope  service. 

And  yet,  it  was  not  his  fault  that  he  had  attacked  the  corruptions  of 
Rome;  he  had  not  thought  of  doing  so;  but  Satan  opened  his  eyes  and 
beheld  his  servant,  John  Eck,  the  great  adversary  of  Christ,  and  stirred 
him  up  to  drag  him  into  the  arena  and  force  upon  him  the  discussion  of 
the  primacy  of  the  Roman  Church.  He  blamed  Cajetan,  who  might 
have  stopped  the  controversy  and  did  not  do  it,  and  Eck  who  renewed 
it.  He  praised  Miltitz,  whose  efforts  were  not  supported.  This  Mil- 


134  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

titz,  now  for  the  third  time,  was  making  an  effort  for  peace,  and  there- 
fore, he  said:  "I  come,  most  blessed  father,  and  even  prostrate  beg  of 
you,  if  possible,  to  lay  your  hand  upon  your  flatterers,  who  are  the 
enemies  of  peace  which  they  pretend  to  seek,  and  restrain  them." 
He  could  not  recant;  that  would  add  to  the  confusion;  and  he  could  not 
consent  that  the  word  of  God  should  be  bound.  But  except  these  two 
things,  he  would  consent  to  anything  for  peace — he  hated  strife. 

This  is  the  substance  of  Luther's  long,  bold,  eloquent  letter.  The 
spirit  is  indicated  by  this  summary,  but  we  are  not  yet  in  a  position 
to  feel  its  significance.  We  must  take  notice  more  particularly  of  the 
way  in  which  the  miner's  son  speaks  to  the  son  of  the  proudest  house  in 
Italy — the  Augustinian  monk  to  the  head  of  the  Church  militant.  He 
calls  him  "the  most  blessed  father  Leo,"  "excellent  Leo,"  "my  father 
Leo,"  "Leo,"  and,  descending  to  the  utmost  familiarity,  "my  dear 
Leo,"  using  just  such  terms  as  he  might  have  used  in  addressing  any 
bishop,  or  even  any  friend.  This  was  not  done  in  simple  coarseness 
and  vulgarity;  it  was  done  with  a  purpose.  What  that  purpose  was  may 
be  estimated  by  another  thing:  Luther  twice  quoted  in  his  letter  from 
St.  Bernard's  work  De  Consider atione,  addressed  to  Pope  Eugenius  III. 
These  two  things,  his  mode  of  address  and  his  referring  to  St.  Bernard, 
taken  together,  indicate  his  conception  of  his  relation  to  the  Pope. 
It  was  a  position  of  substantial  equality;  each  was  the  leader  of  a  party; 
they  might  well  treat  on  equal  terms.  In  mentioning  St.  Bernard, 
he  could  not  forget  the  position  of  that  great  man,  as  the  teacher  and 
guide  of  Europe;  and  he  was  already  beginning  to  feel  that  what  Bernard 
was  in  the  twelfth  century  he  was  coming  to  be  in  the  sixteenth.  Ber- 
nard had  taken  upon  himself  to  instruct  Eugenius  how  to  conduct 
himself  in  his  great  office,  and  Eugenius  had  submitted  to  be  instructed. 
In  the  same  way,  Luther,  who  had  been  providentially  lifted  into  a  place 
of  the  greatest  distinction,  might  not  deem  it  presumptuous  to  admon- 
ish the  reigning  Pope.  He  expressly  calls  himself  the  imitator  of 
Bernard.1 

If  we  ask  ourselves  what  Luther  hoped  to  accomplish  by  his  letter, 
we  have  to  remember  that  he  had  already  seen  the  bull  of  excommunica- 
tion. He  could  hardly  expect  to  induce  the  Pope  to  recall  the  bull. 
Still  less  could  he  hope  to  bring  the  Pope  over  to  his  side  and  engage  him 
in  the  work  of  overturning  the  papal  see.  Most  likely  he  intended  to 
do  what  he  himself  intimates — show  the  world  that  the  contest  was  not 
with  the  Pope  as  a  man,  but  with  the  Pope  as  an  official,  and  in  particular 

1  "Perhaps  I  may  seem  impudent  in  attempting  to  teach  so  great  a  person  by 
whom  all  should  be  taught,  and  as  your  flatterers  boast,  from  whom  the  thrones 
of  judges  receive  their  sentence;  but  I  imitate  St.  Bernard  in  his  book  'On  Con- 
sideration,' which  every  Pope  ought  to  know  by  heart." 


THE  BULL  OF  EXCOMMUNICATION  135 

with  the  Roman  Curia,  which  any  Pope  was  able  to  control  only  in 
part. 

This  letter  was  a  secret  and  unacknowledged  effect  of  the  bull;  it 
was  necessary  that  Luther  should  notice  it  in  some  public,  definite, 
positive  way.  It  had  reached  him  on  October  6th,  Eck  having  sent  it  to 
the  university  of  Wittenberg,  accompanied  by  a  letter  dated  at  Leipzig, 
October  3rd;  it  was  not  convenient,  possible  or  safe  to  deliver  it  in  per- 
son. Eck  intimated  that  in  sending  it  he  was  performing  a  disagreeable 
and  unwilling  service,  and  yet  he  Said,  "I  beg  and  beseech  you  by  our 
Saviour,  to  have  the  bull  so  executed  that  none  of  the  condemned  articles 
shall  be  publicly  held  or  taught  by  anyone  under  the  authority  of  the 
university."  If  this  should  not  be  done,  all  privileges  granted  the  uni- 
versity by  the  papal  see  would  be  withdrawn.  Acting  under  the  au- 
thority of  his  commission  he  had,  he  said,  extended  the  condemnation 
to  Carlstadt  and  Dolscius,  as  well  as  to  Martin.  The  whole  matter  was 
considered  by  the  members  of  the  university,  including  Luther  and  the 
other  condemned  persons.  It  was  decided  that  the  bull  was  not  suffi- 
ciently authenticated;  it  was  not  accompanied  by  a  letter  from  the 
Pope;  and  the  work  of  the  university  went  on  just  as  if  the  condemnation 
had  never  been  received.  Luther  himself  tried  one  of  his  old  tricks " 
he  professed  to  look  upon  it  as  a  forgery,  and  spoke  of  it  as  "the  new 
Eckish  bulls  and  lies."  Afterwards  (November  4th)  he  treated  it 
more  seriously  and  published  a  tract  "Against  the  Execrable  Bull  of 
Antichrist";  and  on  the  17th  of  November  he  renewed  his  appeal  to 
a  general  council.  He  appealed  from  the  Pope  as  "a  tyrannical  judge, 
rash  and  unjust;  as  an  enemy,  an  Antichrist,  an  adversary  and  oppressor 
of  the  Holy  Scripture;  and  as  a  despiser,  calumniator  and  blasphemer  of 
the  Holy  Christian  Church."  In  one  short  month  he  had  forgotten 
that  Leo  X  was  a  Daniel  in  the  lion's  den,  an  Ezekiel  dwelling  among 
the  scorpions! 

Wittenberg  was  not  the  only  place  where  the  bull  met  with  little 
response.  There  were  three  parties  in  Germany:  the  pronounced  Luth- 
erans, the  moderate  middle  party,  and  the  papists — the  "  Eckian  faction, " 
as  it  was  contemptuously  called.  The  bull  met  with  opposition,  neglect 
or  favor,  just  as  it  chanced  to  come  into  a  place  where  anyone  of  these 
parties  predominated;  and  in  the  whole  affair  there  was  room  for  the 
influence  of  certain  incidental  things,  that,  at  particular  junctures, 
seem  to  take  a  kind  of  pleasure  in  working  for  a  rising  and  against  a 
sinking  cause.  When  public  opinion  is  not  decided,  when  the  balances 
are  vibrating,  hesitating  and  doubtful  as  to  which  side  shall  go  up, 
these  come  in,  as  if  in  pure  arbitrariness,  and  tilt  the  trembling  scale. 
There  was  no  doubt  as  to  the  general  trend  of  opinion:  it  was  toward 


136  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

Luther  and  away  from  the  Pope;  but  in  the  case  of  individuals  and 
particular  places  there  was  a  nice  balancing  of  inclination.  It  was  in 
itself  a  matter  of  little  significance  who  should  bring  the  bull  into  Ger- 
many; ordinarily  it  would  make  no  difference;  but  at  that  particular 
time  it  was  unfortunate  for  the  Papacy  that  some  one  else  was  not 
chosen  for  that  service.  Eck  was  unpopular;  he  had  made  enemies  by 
his  conduct  at  Leipzig  and  afterwards,  and  those  who  hated  him  might 
easily  hate  the  bull  for  his  sake.  His  position  was  not  enviable;  he 
made  enemies  for  the  bull  and  the  bull  made  enemies  for  him.  Then  there 
were  some  things  about  the  bull  itself  that  furnished  occasion  for  crit- 
icism. Some  thought  it  was  not  in  proper  form;  some  objected  to  the 
literary  style  of  it;  the  sentences  were  too  long  and  involved;  in  one  case 
there  were  four  hundred  words  between  the  nominative  case  and  its 
verb!  Some  objected  that  forty-one  of  Luther's  propositions  were 
condemned  as  heretical,  scandalous,  offensive  to  hearer's  ears,  etc.,  but 
that  no  designation  had  been  made  of  the  class  to  which  any  one  prop- 
osition belonged.1  These  objections  had  nothing  whatever  to  do 
with  the  main  question  as  to  whether  Luther  was  a  heretic  and  his  con- 
demnation just;  they  were  trivial  and  captious,  but  when  men  are  doubt- 
ful whether  a  thing  ought  to  be  done  at  all,  they  are  overnice  as  to  the 
manner  of  doing  it;  and  so  little  a  thing  as  the  construction  of  a  sentence 
in  the  papal  bull  made  for  Luther  and  against  the  Pope.  These  little 
things  were  the  chaff  on  the  surface,  indicating  the  direction  of  the  tide. 
It  soon  became  evident  that  the  issuing  of  the  bull  was  by  no  means 
the  last  act  in  the  "tragedy."  Men  were  anxious,  excited,  indignant, 
expectant,  but  little  was  done.  The  bull  was  published  with  difficulty 
at  Leipzig,  where  Eck  thought  his  life  was  in  danger.  Even  at  Ingol- 
stadt  its  publication  was  delayed;  at  Erfurt  the  students  tore  it  in  pieces 
and  cast  the  fragments  in  the  river.2  Hutten  published  it  with  bitter 
comments,  and  urged  violent  opposition  to  it.  In  the  meantime,  no 
one  had  attempted  to  arrest  Luther;  he  was  still  teaching,  preaching, 
writing,  publishing,  as  vigorously  as  ever,  even  more  vigorously.  What- 
ever notions  men  might  have  of  the  prerogative  of  the  Pope,  they  saw 
that  without  popular  support  he  was  powerless.  A  little  while  before 
all  eyes  were  turned  to  Rome;  but  now  the  Pope  had  spoken;  he  had. 
exhausted  his  resources;  nothing  more  was  expected  of  him;  men  turned 
to  the  Emperor  and  the  States  of  Germany. 

*  These  criticisms  are  mentioned,  along  with  others  not  more  important,  by 
Sarpi,  under  the  year  1520. 
2  They  made  a  bad  pun  about  it:  since  it  is  a  bubble  (bulla)  let  it  float. 


CHAPTER  VI 

THE   DIET  OF  WORMS 

IT  was  more  than  a  year  after  his  election  before  Charles  V  found  it 
convenient  to  visit  his  new  dominions.  He  was  to  meet  the  electors 
at  Aachen,  October  6,  1520,  and  be  crowned  king  of  Germany.  On  his 
very  first  appearance  in  Germany  he  had  an  opportunity  to  indicate 
something  of  his  character.  The  plague  was  raging  at  Aachen  and  the 
Electors  suggested  that  some  other  place  should  be  substituted.  No; 
the  Golden  Bull  required  that  the  coronation  should  take  place  at 
Aachen,  and  the  law  must  be  obeyed.1  In  our  day  a  meeting  of  a 
Congress  of  the  Nations  could  assemble  at  precisely  the  hour  appointed; 
in  that  time  of  laborious  and  uncertain  travel  it  occasioned  no  remark 
and  produced  no  ill  feeling  that  the  meeting  appointed  for  the  6th  did 
not  take  place  until  the  21st  of  the  month.  On  that  day  the  Electors 
reached  Aachen.  The  next  day  they  went  out  to  meet  the  Emperor, 
and  with  them  a  splendid  escort  of  sixteen  hundred  horsemen,  besides 
archers  and  lancers.  The  Emperor  met  them  with  two  thousand  horse, 
"all  bravely  clothed."  The  whole  company,  increased  by  the  four 
hundred  horse  of  the  Duke  of  Cleves,  entered  the  city  after  nightfall.  It 
was  pronounced  the  finest  cavalcade  ever  seen  in  Germany. 

The  ceremony  of  coronation  was  splendid  and  imposing;  it  took  place 
in  the  Church  of  Our  Lady,  and  might  almost  be  described  as  a  long 
act  of  worship.  When  the  Emperor  was  seated  on  the  throne,  richly 
overlaid  with  gold,  the  Archbishop  of  Cologne,  in  the  midst  of  a  solemn 
mass,  turned  to  him  and  asked  him  if  he  would  keep  the  Catholic  faith, 
defend  the  Church,  administer  justice  and  maintain  the  dignity  of  the 
Empire,  protect  widows  and  the  fatherless  and  other  distressed  persons, 
and  whether  he  would  give  due  honor  to  the  bishop  of  Rome?  The  last 
question  and  the  first  are  those  that  particularly  concern  us :  the  Emperor 
was  sworn  to  give  due  honor  to  the  Pope  and  to  keep  the  Catholic  faith. 
There  was  given  him  a  sword,  a  ring  was  put  on  his  finger,  he  was  clothed 
with  imperial  vestments;  and  then  the  archbishops  of  Mainz,  Cologne 
and  Trier  put  the  crown  on  his  head.  There  were  masses  and  prayers 

1  The  people  of  Aachen  opposed  the  change  for  a  different  reason:  they  had  made 
great  preparations,  and  they  did  not  wish  to  lose  their  labor  and  the  opportunity 
for  display.  The  feast  was  prepared,  the  wedding  must  go  on. 

137 


138  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

and  music  and  congratulations;  and  the  conferring  of  knighthood  by 
the  Emperor,  and  feasting  and  wine.1  When  all  the  ceremonies  and 
feastings  were  ended,  the  Archbishop  of  Mainz  announced  that  the 
Pope  confirmed  the  election  and  commanded  that  henceforth  Charles 
should  be  called  Emperor.  The  Electors  left  the  city,  and  about 
November  1st  the  Emperor  sent  out  letters  summoning  the  Diet  to 
meet  at  Worms  on  January  6th. 

There  were  present  at  the  coronation  two  representatives  of  the  Pope. 
Of  these  Jerome  Aleander  was  the  more  important,  as  to  him,  with  Eck, 
had  been  committed  the  publication  and  execution  of  the  bull  of  excom- 
munication against  Luther.  The  Emperor  was  urged  to  execute  the 
bull  at  once,  but  there  was  a  difficulty:  the  Elector  of  Saxony  would 
not  consent.  To  him  Aleander  therefore  addressed  himself.  He 
demanded  two  things:  that  the  Elector  should  have  Luther's  books 
burned,  and  either  execute  Luther  himself  or  send  him  a  prisoner  to 
Rome.  The  motive  urged  was  that  it  was  the  duty  of  the  Emperor 
and  all  the  Electoral  princes  of  the  Empire  to  see  the  Pope's  bull  executed. 
In  this  Aleander  was  right;  such  was  the  law  of  the  Empire,  or  a  custom 
tantamount  to  law;  and  for  years  princes  had  acknowledged  that  duty. 
But  as  it  was  a  very  important  matter,  the  Elector  asked  for  time  to 
consider.  After  consideration  (November  4th)  he  answered  very  much 
as  he  had  recently  answered  the  Pope  through  his  ambassador  at  Rome, 
and  very  much  as  he  had  answered  all  along.  He  was  surprised  that 
the  Pope  should  demand  such  a  service  of  him;  he  was  not  unmindful  of 
the  glory  of  his  ancestors  (who  were  always  referred  to  as  special  defend- 
ers of  the  Church)  and  he  would  do  his  duty  to  the  Empire  and  the 
Church.  He  mentioned  that  Eck  had  recently,  and  in  his  absence, 
given  trouble  to  Luther  and  other  honored  men  in  his  dominions;  that 
he  resented  very  much  as  an  impertinent  interference  with  his  business. 
As  to  what  Luther  had  done  since  the  bull  was  received,  he  was  con- 
veniently ignorant — he  did  not  know.  He  told  what  he  had  already 
done  in  the  case:  that  Luther  was  still  willing  to  be  convinced;  that  it 
did  not  appear  to  the  Emperor  or  to  any  magistrate  that  Luther's 
books  contained  heresy;  that  good  and  honored  men  thought  them  true 
and  useful.  He  wished  Luther  to  have  a  safe-conduct,  and  the  whole 
matter  to  be  debated  lovingly  and  quietly.  If  Luther  should  be  refuted 
by  Scripture  and  solid  argument,  he  would  not  countenance  him.  In 
the  meantime  the  Pope  ought  not  to  require  anything  of  him  that  he 
could  not  honorably  do.  He  would  not  command  Luther's  books  to 
be  burned.2 

1  An  elaborate  account  of  the  coronation  of  Charles  is  given  by  Sleidan,  p.  37  seq* 
'Walch,  15:  1612. 


THE  DIET  OF  WORMS  139 

In  this  whole  matter  the  Elector  ignored  the  bull  of  excommunica- 
tion; he  treated  it  as  if  it  did  not  exist,  or  as  if  it  were  of  no  force  or 
significance;  he  required  Luther  to  be  condemned  by  competent,  im- 
partial judges,  who  were  to  form  their  judgment  according  to  Scripture 
and  sound  reason.  On  the  other  hand,  Aleander  claimed  that  the  case 
had  already  been  decided;  the  Pope  had  declared  Luther  a  heretic,  and  it 
was  injurious  and  rebellious  to  question  the  justice  of  the  Pope's  decision. 
The  Emperor  was  rather  inclined  to  hold  with  the  Elector,  in  think- 
ing that  the  bull  was  not  final. 

The  Elector  did  not  need  anything  to  confirm  him  in  the  course  that 
he  had  from  the  first  pursued.  His  friendship  for  Luther  was  already 
reinforced  by  a  feeling  of  irritation  at  the  persistency  of  the  Pope  and 
the  impudence  of  some  of  his  party;  but  at  such  a  time  he  could  not  be 
indifferent  to  the  opinions  of  learned  men.  Erasmus  again  came  to  his 
help.  When  the  Elector  wished  to  know  of  him  what  he  thought  of 
Luther's  case,  he  replied,  "Luther  has  committed  two  sins:  he  has 
touched  the  Pope's  crown  and  the  monks'  bellies.  "x  At  the  same  time 
he  gave  to  Spalatin  some  notes  expressing  a  more  serious  opinion.  He 
thought  the  source  of  the  trouble  was  hatred  of  learning  and  the  lust 
of  power.  The  bull  was  too  severe;  it  offended  all  good  men  and  was 
unworthy  of  the  Vicar  of  Christ.  Those  who  had  written  against  Luther 
were  condemned  by  theologians  not  otherwise  favorable  to  Luther. 
Luther  seemed  to  all  fair-minded  men  to  seek  what  was  reasonable  when 
he  offered  to  dispute  publicly  and  to  submit  himself  to  impartial,  unsus- 
pected judges.  He  expressed  himself  to  the  same  effect  in  a  letter  which  he 
wrote  about  this  time  to  certain  high  officials,  civil  and  ecclesiastical, 
who  had  asked  his  opinion.  He,  too,  was  on  the  side  of  the  Elector — he 
did  not  accept  the  bull  as  a  final  or  suitable  judgment  in  Luther's  case. 

In  the  position  of  affairs,  the  Pope's  party  must  make  the  first  move. 
Luther's  friends  could  remain  quiet;  they  had  nothing  to  do;  they  could 
wait  until  Luther  had  been  fairly  tried,  or  for  a  general  council,  to 
which  Luther  had  a  second  time  appealed,2  and  which  many  of  both 
parties  felt  to  be  necessary.  On  the  other  hand,  his  enemies  were  com- 
pelled to  act,  or  confess  themselves  defeated;  the  bull  required  some- 
thing to  be  done.  Accordingly,  the  Pope  insisted  on  action,  and  when 
Aleander  found  that  he  could  not  persuade  the  Elector  to  carry  out  the 
Pope's  wishes,  he  undertook  to  have  it  done  himself.  The  universities 
of  Cologne  and  Louvain,  that  had  already  taken  part  in  the  controversy 
on  the  papal  side,  gave  yet  further  proof  of  their  zeal  and  devotion  by 
committing  all  of  Luther's  books  to  the  flames.  The  Emperor  was  then 

1  Lutherus  peccavit  in  duobus,  nempe,  quod  tetigit  coronam  Pontificis,  et  ventre& 
monachorum.     December  5,  1520.     Spalatin,  p.  29. 

2  Walch,  15:  1602. 


140  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

at  Cologne.  At  Mainz  also  Luther's  books  were  burned.  There  was 
no  organized  opposition  to  this  proceeding,  but  the  multitude  was  with 
Luther,  and  his  cause  gained  there  more  than  it  lost  by  this  action  of 
the  authorities. 

What  was  done  at  Cologne  and  Louvain  and  Mainz  suggested  what 
might  also  be  done  at  Wittenberg.  Luther  had  already  taught  that 
the  humblest  Christian  had  as  much  right  to  judge  the  Pope  as  the 
Pope  had  to  judge  him.  It  followed  that  if  the  Pope  could  condemn  his 
writings,  he  might  also  condemn  the  Pope's,  and  the  vain  expedient  of 
burning  books — vain  in  the  age  of  the  printing-press — might  be  used 
by  one  party  as  well  as  by  the  other.  Early  on  the  morning  of  Monday, 
December  30th,  a  notice  was  posted  at  the  university: 

All  friends  of  evangelical  truth  are  invited  to  assemble,  about 
nine  o'clock,  at  the  church  of  the  Holy  Cross,  beyond  the  city  wall. 
There,  according  to  ancient,  apostolic  usage,  the  godless  books 
of  the  papal  constitutions  and  the  scholastic  theology  will  be  burned, 
inasmuch  as  the  presumption  of  the  enemies  of  the  Gospel  has  ad- 
vanced to  such  a  degree  that  they  have  cast  the  godly,  evangelical 
books  of  Luther  into  the  fire.  Let  all  earnest  students,  therefore, 
appear  at  the  spectacle;  for  it  is  now  the  time  when  Antichrist  must 
be  exposed. 

There  were  then  nearly  a  thousand  students  at  the  university,  and 
they,  together  with  many  townsmen,  turned  out  to  witness  the  promised 
spectacle.  Near  the  church  named  in  the  notice  was  an  open  square, 
and  during  the  recent  visitation  of  the  plague  it  had  been  the  custom  to 
burn  there  infected  clothing  and  other  articles.  Here  a  pyre  was  built. 
Luther,  dressed  in  the  robes  of  a  doctor  of  theology,  solemnly  placed 
on  this  pyre  a  number  of  books,  including  the  Decretals,  on  which  im- 
pudent forgeries  the  power  of  the  Papacy  had  been  built  up,  and  the 
Canon  Law,  by  which  its  authority  was  chiefly  supported.  A  master 
of  arts  of  the  university  came  forward  and  lighted  the  fire;  and  when 
the  pyre  was  well  ablaze  Luther  threw  into  the  flames  the  Pope's  bull, 
saying  in  a  loud  voice,  "Because  thou  dost  trouble  the  holy  one  of  the 
Lord,  may  eternal  fire  consume  thee. " 

In  a  book  that  many  who  read  these  words  have  doubtless  enjoyed, 
"The  Schonberg-Cotta  Family,"  after  an  account  of  this  scene,  it  is 
added:  "Not  a  word  broke  the  silence,  until  the  last  crackle  of  these 
symbolical  flames  had  ceased,  and  then  gravely  but  joyfully  we  returned 
to  our  homes."  But  just  the  contrary  was  what  really  happened. 
Those  who  have  seen  several  thousand  college  students  in  New  York 
or  Philadelphia  celebrating  a  football  victory,  can  imagine  pretty  well 
what  was  done.  Doctor  Luther  and  some  of  the  sober  citizens  very 


THE  DIET  OF  WORMS  141 

likely  returned  home  "gravely  but  joyfully,"  but  as  soon  as  their  backs 
were  turned  the  students  took  the  occasion  in  hand;  and  students  of  the 
sixteenth  century  were  very  much  like  those  of  the  twentieth.  First, 
they  gathered  about  the  pyre  and  sang  dirges  and  danced  while  the 
books  were  being  consumed.  Then  it  occurred  to  them  that  it  was 
a  pity  to  have  only  one  bonfire,  where  material  was  so  abundant;  so 
they  scoured  the  city  for  books  written  by  Luther's  opponents  and  finally 
collected  a  wagonful.  These  they  brought  to  the  square,  where  they 
were  burned  with  all  the  fantastic  exercises  that  the  ingenuity  of  the 
students  could  suggest.  So  uproarious  were  the  demonstrations,  that 
on  the  following  day  when  he  delivered  his  university  lecture,  Luther 
felt  constrained  to  administer  a  public  rebuke.1 

For  to  him,  and  to  all  who  realized  the  gravity  of  the  occasion,  this 
was  no  frolic,  but  a  solemn  religious  ceremony,  and  at  the  same  time 
an  unmistakable  declaration  of  war  against  the  most  formidable  power 
then  in  existence.  It  was  an  announcement  to  the  world  that  the 
Reformation  could  not  be  stopped,  indeed,  that  it  must  go  much  farther. 
All  that  has  been  said,  and  all  that  remains  to  say,  about  some  of  the 
faults  of  Luther,  is  true — his  violence,  his  dogmatism,  his  total  inability 
to  practice  self-restraint,  his  intolerance  of  any  opposition:  these  things 
may  be  read  on  every  page  of  his  writings  from  this  time  on,  and  there 
have  been  more  than  hints  of  them  in  what  he  wrote  before  this  date. 
But  these  are  the  defects  of  his  qualities;  a  less  bold,  impetuous  and  self- 
confident  nature  would  never  have  dared  to  withstand  the  apparently 
irresistible  power  of  Pope  and  Emperor.  A  man  of  soft  nature  would 
never  have  become  a  heretic  and  a  rebel.  We  can  pardon  a  great  many 
errors  in  the  man  who  had  the  courage  publicly  to  burn  the  Pope's  bull. 
And  at  no  hour  in  Luther's  life  does  he  appear  to  better  advantage, 
never  did  his  courage  rise  higher,  never  did  he  more  unmistakably 
stand  forth  as  the  hero  of  the  German  nation,  than  on  the  day  when, 
by  this  significant  symbol,  single-handed,  he  defied  the  powers  that 
were  gathering  to  crush  him. 

It  was  a  great  day  at  Wittenberg — greater  than  the  actors  thought. 
If  he  had  failed,  what  Luther  did  that  day  would  have  seemed  ridiculous, 
the  merest  bravado.  But  he  was  not  to  fail.  By  a  kind  of  intuition 
he  even  then  understood  his  position  better  than  the  world  has  since 
understood  it;  he  felt  that  there  were  two  great  parties  in  the  world, 
the  heads  of  those  parties  Leo  X  and  Luther.  It  has  been  objected  that 
he  spoke  of  himself  as  "the  holy  one  of  the  Lord, "  and  his  friends  have 
answered  that  it  was  not  himself  but  Christ  to  whom  he  referred.  In 

1  On  the  burning  of  the  bull,  see  LOL,  5:  251  seq.  A  German  version  is  in  Walch, 
15:  1617.  Compare  Luther's  letter  to  Staupitz,  January  14,  1521,  De  Wette,  1: 
541.  The  spot  is  now  marked  by  a  large  oak  tree,  surrounded  by  an  iron  railing. 


142  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

the  one  case  malice  failed  to  apprehend  the  whole  truth,  and  in  the 
other  friendly  partiality  has  been  a  bad  interpreter.1  We  may  believe 
that  he  did  call  himself  "the  holy  one  of  the  Lord";  and  in  his  position 
there  was  no  presumption  nor  arrogance  in  his  so  doing.  Leo  X  was 
accepted  as  the  successor  of  the  apostles,  the  Vicar  of  Jesus  Christ; 
why  might  not  Luther,  who  supposed  himself  to  be  standing  for  the 
truth,  speak  of  himself  in  a  peculiar  sense  as  a  servant  of  the  Lord? 
Believing  that  he  was  doing  the  Lord's  work,  he  might  have  spoken 
thus  with  the  profoundest  humility. 

He  immediately2  declared  and  justified  what  he  had  done.  If  any- 
one should  ask  why  he  did  it,  the  answer  was  that  it  was  his  bounden 
duty,  as  a  baptized  Christian,  as  a  sworn  defender  of  the  Holy  Scrip- 
ture, as  a  daily  preacher,  to  root  out  all  unchristian  doctrines.  But  it 
is  instructive  to  notice  that  in  the  very  act  of  overturning  one  pretended 
infallible  authority,  Luther  sets  up  another.  He  taught  the  students 
the  next  day  that  unless  they  contended  against  the  Pope,  they  could 
not  be  saved;  that  whoever  took  delight  in  the  worship  of  popery  would 
be  eternally  lost.3  So  invincible  is  the  tendency  among  religious  contro- 
versialists to  hold  that  every  important  truth  (or  even  unimportant 
truth)  is  a  matter  of  eternal  life  or  death.  How  Luther  himself,  and 
Erasmus  with  him,  had  argued  earnestly  against  the  folly  and  injustice 
of  looking  upon  every  error  as  heresy! 

After  the  coronation  of  Charles  at  Aachen,  and  especially  after  the 
burning  of  the  Pope's  bull,  every  step  was  toward  Worms.  The  deci- 
sion of  the  Roman  Curia  had  not  settled  the  case  as  to  Luther;  the  bull 
was  slow  in  getting  itself  executed;  very  many  thought  it  were  better 
not  executed.  Men's  minds  were  not  at  rest — they  wished  for  some 
other  tribunal  to  which  the  case  might  be  referred;  in  the  absence  of  a 
General  Council,  the  highest  authority  in  the  Church,  they  thought  of 
the  Emperor  and  the  Diet,  the  highest  authority  in  the  State.  But  if 
Luther  were  to  appear  before  the  Diet,  it  was  not  at  all  clear  what  the 
Diet  was  to  demand  of  him  or  to  do  with  him.  There  was  no  need  that 
judgment  should  be  passed  upon  him;  the  Pope  had  already  condemned 
him.  It  was  not  even  necessary  that  the  Diet  should  order  his  execu- 

i  Schaff,  6:  248:  "The  'Holy  One'  refers  to  Christ,  as  in  Mark  1:  24;  Acts  2:  27; 
not  to  Luther,  as  ignorance  and  malignity  have  interpreted  the  word.  Luther 
spoke  in  Latin:  Quia  tu  conturbasti  Sanctum  Domini,  ideoque  te  conturbet  ignis 
aeturnus."  The  reference  is  to  Josh.  7:  25.  According  to  Schaff  Luther  meant 
that  the  Bull  had  disturbed  the  Lord  in  disturbing  Luther.  This  is  indeed  im- 
plied, but  only  as  he  who  touches  one  of  the  Lord's  saints  touches  Him.  By 
what  authority  does  Schaff  write  Sanctum  instead  of  sanctumf 

* And  also  later,  and  more  formally,  in  the  tract,  "Why  the  Books  of  the  Pope 
and  his  Disciples  were  burned  by  Dr.  Martin  Luther,"  in  Latin  and  German. 
LOL,  5:  257  seq.  LDS,  24:  151;  Walch,  15:  1619  seq.  The  elector,  in  a  letter 
to  Charles  V,  called  it  a  very  imprudent  act. 

» LOL,  5:  253. 


THE  DIET  OF  WORMS  143 

tion;  the  bull  made  it  the  duty  of  any  prince  to  do  that  without  any 
order.  He  might  be  required  to  retract  his  teachings,  but  that  had 
already  been  done  by  the  bull.  If  the  Diet  should  undertake  to  hear 
his  cause,  that  would  be  a  virtual  denial  of  the  Pope's  supremacy,  and 
an  acknowledgment  of  the  justice  of  Luther's  complaints  that  he  had 
been  condemned  unheard.  Both  parties  felt  that  for  the  Diet  to  do 
anything  was  a  reflection  on  the  Pope;  and  yet  it  was  evidently  necessary 
for  the  Diet  to  do  something. 

The  Emperor,  too,  felt  the  difficulty.  He  was  a  politician  from  his 
youth,  and  his  conduct  toward  the  Pope,  even  from  the  first,  was  affected 
by  political  considerations;  but  apart  from  these  things,  there  was  suffi- 
cient reason  for  his  hesitation  and  vacillation.  He  was  influenced  now 
by  one  party,  now  by  the  other;  or,  as  is  most  likely,  now  by  his  own 
independent  judgment,  and  now  by  what  seemed  to  be  required  of  him 
by  his  position  as  the  civil  head  of  the  Church.  On  November  28th, 
he  wrote  to  the  Elector  from  Oppenheim,  directing  him  to  bring  Luther 
to  Worms  "in  order  to  give  him  there  a  full  hearing  before  learned 
and  competent  persons,"  and  promising  that  no  harm  should  come  to 
him;  in  the  meantime,  the  Elector  was  to  require  Luther  to  write  noth- 
ing against  the  Pope.  The  Emperor  was  acting  on  the  suggestion  of  the 
Elector,  but  between  the  time  of  this  suggestion  and  the  time  of  the 
Elector's  receiving  the  letter  things  had  been  changed:  Luther's 
books  had  been  burned — he  had  been  treated  as  a  condemned  heretic. 
This  offended  the  Elector,  and  he  wrote  the  Emperor  December  20th, 
declining  to  require  Luther's  presence  at  the  Diet.  The  Emperor,  too, 
had  changed;  he  had  begun  to  realize  that  Luther  was  under  the  papal 
ban,  and  that  any  place  in  which  he  might  be  was  declared  under  inter- 
dict. Luther  therefore  could  not  be  permitted  to  come  to  Worms.  He 
might  be  brought  to  Frankfort-on-Main,  or  some  other  place,  to 
await  further  orders;  but  not  even  this  was  to  be  allowed  unless  he  re- 
tracted what  he  had  said  against  the  Papacy.  If  he  would  not  retract, 
he  was  to  stay  at  home  until  the  Emperor  should  have  opportunity  to 
confer  with  the  Elector  personally.  The  Emperor's  second  letter  was 
dated  December  17th.1 

The  Diet  met  January  28,  1521.  Not  long  afterwards  (February  10th) 
there  came  a  brief  from  Rome  making  final  Luther's  excommunication — 
the  days  of  grace  having  passed — and  urging  his  condemnation  by  the 
Diet  and  Emperor.2  But  there  was  evident  reluctance  to  proceed 
against  him;  something  might  yet  be  accomplished  by  negotiations. 
Glapio,  the  Emperor's  confessor,  and  much  in  his  confidence,  had 

1  Correspondence  in  Walch,  15:  1697  scq. 

2  The  bull,  however,  is  dated  January  4,  1521.     Mag.  Butt,  1:  618  scq.;  Wa'ch. 
15:  1704  seq. 


144  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

several  interviews  with  Brinck,  the  Elector's  chancellor.  Everything, 
the  confessor  thought,  might  be  arranged.  Some  of  Luther's  books  were 
excellent,  and  all  of  them  might  be  tolerated  except  the  book  on  the 
"Babylonian  Captivity."  He  drew  the  line  there;  but  if  Luther  would 
only  deny  that  he  had  written  that  book — it  really  was  not  like  him — 
everything  else  might  be  pardoned.  Glapio  had  forgotten  that  the 
Pope  had  condemned  all  Luther's  writings,  and  that  the  bull  was  issued 
before  the  "Babylonian  Captivity"  was  published.  He  sought  an 
interview  with  the  Elector,  which  was  declined;  Brinck  had  no  authority 
or  will  to  act,  and  the  conferences  accomplished  nothing.  In  the  mean- 
time, strong  pressure  was  brought  to  bear  upon  the  Emperor;  daily 
conferences  were  held  with  him,  at  which  the  Elector's  friends,  and  es- 
pecially the  Elector,  were  not  present.  He  at  last  gave  way  and  had 
an  edict  prepared  against  Luther.  This,  however,  he  would  not  con- 
sent to  issue,  without  the  advice  and  approval  of  the  Diet.  The  whole 
case  was  referred  to  the  assembled  nobles;  Luther's  fate  was  in  their 
hands;  and  the  question  was  to  be  argued. 

Aleander,1  as  he  had  all  along  been,  was  the  representative  of  the  papal 
cause.  He  had  not  long  completed  his  fortieth  year,  and  had  been 
learned  and  distinguished  from  his  youth.  His  acquaintance  with 
Hebrew  suggested  the  accusation  that  he  was  of  Jewish  extraction;  he 
knew  Greek  from  his  childhood,  and  Latin  he  used  with  great  readiness 
and  force.  He  held  many  offices  of  trust.  At  this  time  he  was  librarian 
of  the  Vatican,  but  was  released  from  the  duties  of  this  position  that  he 
might  undertake  his  important  mission  to  Germany.  His  selection 
for  so  delicate  and  difficult  an  office  indicated  the  reputation  in  which 
he  was  held,  and  he  so  acquitted  himself  as  to  justify  the  selection.  His 
address  before  the  Diet  was  long,  eloquent,  impressive — somewhat 
weakened,  however,  by  its  bitterness  and  vehemence.2  He  spoke,  he  said, 
in  defense  of  the  papal  throne,  which  was  so  dear  to  them  all.  He 
enumerated  the  heresies  taught  in  Luther's  works.  We  already  know 
what  they  were.  Luther  was  obstinate,  disobedient  to  the  Pope's 
summons,  refused  to  be  instructed;  the  Pope  had  condemned  him,  and 
it  was  the  Emperor's  duty  to  enforce  the  condemnation;  the  laity  had 
nothing  to  do  with  such  questions  except  to  carry  out  the  Pope's 
decrees;  ruin  would  follow  if  Luther  were  not  condemned;  a  decree 
from  the  Emperor  would  restore  quiet,  and  preserve  the  Church  and 
the  Empire. 

1  Aleander  1480-1543.  For  sketch  of  his  life  and  writings  see  Roscoe,  "Leo  X," 
2:  284  seq. 

1  Erasmus  and  Aleander  had  been  on  good  terms  before  the  Diet  at  Worms. 
Erasmus  bitterly  condemned  the  bitterness  of  his  speech  against  Luther.  Roscoe, 

2:  287. 


THE  DIET  OF  WORMS  145 

Such  were  some  of  the  considerations  that  the  nuncio  urged;  he  gave 
to  the  Pope  the  old  traditional  position  of  supremacy;  Rome  had  already 
spoken,  and  only  action  was  needed.  He  sat  down  amid  murmurs  of 
approbation,  but  he  had  made  no  new  points,  given  no  fresh  reasons. 
He  left  the  case  exactly  where  he  found  it,  and,  as  soon  as  men's  minds 
had  time  to  cool,  the  same  old  difficulties  looked  them  in  the  face.  A 
learned  Italian  had  presented  the  cause  of  the  Pope,  hardly  less  against 
the  Diet  than  against  Luther.  A  few  days  afterwards  a  representative 
German,  Duke  George  of  Saxony,,  already  Luther's  enemy,  presented 
the  case  of  Germany  against  the  Pope.  There  were  many  things  of 
which  he  complained,  exactions  and  usurpations,  the  growth  and  accumu- 
lation of  years.  What  had  been  granted  in  particular  emergencies  for 
the  benefit  of  all,  the  Popes  had  continued  to  collect  for  their  own 
benefit;  what  the  Germans  had  freely  given  was  now  exacted  as  a 
debt;  and  what  the  Popes  had  once  given  freely  the  Germans 
were  now  required  to  buy.  The  movement  had  been  hi  one  direction 
only,  always  in  favor  of  the  Papacy.  The  power  of  the  Pope  to 
benefit  Germany  had  greatly  diminished;  the  cost  of  supporting  him 
had  greatly  increased.  The  less  he  was  worth  the  more  he  cost 
— so  Germany  was  beginning  to  feel.  A  committee  of  the  Diet  was 
appointed,  and  brought  in  a  long  list  of  grievances,  a  hundred  and 
one  in  all.1 

With  so  many  grievances  against  the  Pope  already,  the  Diet  would 
hardly  be  in  a  hurry  to  take  the  Pope's  part  against  a  popular  German; 
the  condemnation  of  Luther,  and  especially  the  manner  of  the  condemna- 
tion, was  itself  another  grievance.  The  law,  or  at  least  custom,  required 
the  execution  of  the  bull,  and  was  against  granting  to  a  condemned 
heretic  a  new  hearing  before  a  secular  tribunal.  It  was  one  of  those 
often  occurring  cases  in  which  law  demands  one  thing  and  expediency 
or  justice  another.  In  such  cases  men  usually  resort  to  compromise: 
as  nearly  as  possible,  they  neither  keep  nor  violate  the  law;  and  this  the 
Diet  did.  After  a  long  discussion  it  was  decided  that  it  was  not  ex- 
pedient to  enforce  stringent  measures  against  Luther  before  hearing 
him.  He  was  bo  be  summoned,  but  there  was  to  be  no  discussion  with 
him;  he  was  simply  to  be  asked  "whether  or  not  he  intended  to  insist 
upon  the  writings  that  he  had  published  against  our  holy  Christian  faith." 
If  he  retracted  the  objectionable  writings,  he  might  be  further  questioned 
and  heard,  and  he  would  be  fairly  dealt  with.  If  he  did  not  retract, 
the  Diet  would  pledge  itself  to  maintain  the  faith  handed  down  by  the 
Fathers,  and  the  imperial  edict  against  Luther  should  be  issued.  It  was 

1  Walch,  15:  1730  seq.;  and  cf.  Gebhardt,  Die  Gravamina  der  Deutschen  Nation 
gegen  den  rdmischen  Hof.  2d  ed.  Breslau,  1895. 


146  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

a  virtual  victory  for  the  anti-papal  party.    Aleander  had  sought  to 
prevent  Luther's  being  heard  and  had  failed.1 

In  the  interval  between  October  6,  1520,  and  the  following  March  6th, 
when  he  was  summoned  to  Worms,  Luther  had  an  interesting  ex- 
perience. His  excommunication  put  him  in  a  new  position,  and  changed 
his  attitude  to  everything  about  him.  First  of  all,  it  released  him  from 
all  those  obligations  that  came  upon  him  from  his  relation  to  the  papal 
Church — it  freed  him  from  hampering  vows.  Not  less  important,  it 
incidentally  freed  him  from  certain  traditional  opinions  that  had  held 
him,  and  still  held  him  to  some  extent,  in  bondage.  In  the  beginning 
of  his  work  he  had  taught  that  God,  in  forgiving  sin,  first  subjected  the 
penitent  to  the  priest  in  all  things.  It  was  the  priest  who  absolved, 
and  the  judgment  and  sentence  of  the  priest  carried  with  it  the  judg- 
ment and  sentence  of  God.  It  was  this  belief  that  gave  the  priest  his 
power  over  the  consciences  of  men;  and  that  power  was  used  against 
Luther.  It  was  an  easy  thing  to  ask  anyone  who  came  to  confess  if 
he  had,  or  had  read,  or  approved  Luther's  books.  If  he  answered  affirma- 
tively, absolution  was  withheld.  According  to  Luther's  own  teaching, 
the  priest's  absolution  was  very  important;  the  withholding  of  it  was  a 
serious  matter.  Many  might  feel  that  they  read  Luther's  books  at  the 
peril  of  their  souls,  and  would  give  them  up  at  the  command  of  their 
priest.  The  situation  was  new  and  threatening;  Luther  must  provide 
for  it;  he  had  been  gradually  coming  into  a  position  from  which  the  way 
would  seem  clear.  He  had  already  taught  that  in  the  sacraments 
faith  is  the  principal  thing — the  sacraments  were  indeed  important, 
and  not  to  be  despised,  but  faith  was  the  life  of  them.  He  had  once 
held  that  while  the  priest's  absolution  and  God's  absolution  are  not  of 
equal  importance  (one  being  real  and  essential,  the  other  only  formal), 
they  were  yet  inseparably  joined.  As  he  had  gone  on,  the  inward  and 
vital  had  grown  and  the  outward  and  formal  had  dwindled,  until  it 
had  become  only  a  dim  and  wavering  line.  It  only  needed  a  little 
help  from  without  to  force  him  to  see  that  the  gracious  promises  of 
the  Gospel  are  made  to  the  sinner  himself  and  for  himself,  and  not  to  the 
priest  for  him.  The  new  situation  furnished  that  help,2  and  he  now 
taught  that  Christ  is  for  every  believing  soul  a  present  and  sufficient 
priest,  and  gives  immediate  and  full  absolution  to  those  who  make  their 
confession  to  him.  This  is  the  peculiar  Protestant  doctrine,  that 
Christ  and  not  the  Church,  in  himself  and  not  by  the  Church,  is  the 

1  Walch,  15:  1729. 

2  Speaking  of  the  effect  of  the  Bull,  and  of  papal  opposition  generally  on  Luther, 
Sarpi  says:  "  Martin  failed  not  to  confirm  his  doctrines  by  divers  writings,  and  ac- 
cordingly as  he  studied  he  discovered  more  light,  even  passing  some  step  further 
forward,  and  finding  articles  of  which  in  the  beginning  he  had  not  thought." — 
"Hist,  of  Council  of  Trent,"  year  1520. 


THE  DIET  OF  WORMS  147 

dispenser  of  salvation  to  men.  To  those  who  hold  this  doctrine,  the 
frowning  and  threatening,  or  the  weeping  and  pitying,  priest  is  but  a 
shadow;  his  lips  move,  but  there  is  no  voice.  In  other  words,  the  priest 
is  no  priest  at  all,  or  a  priest  only  in  the  sense  in  which  all  Christians  are 
priests.  This  is  the  doctrine  that  came  fully  to  the  excommunicated 
Luther,  and  with  it  he  delivered  himself  and  his  friends  from  the  terror 
of  the  Papacy.  Before  this  J/ime,  even  with  Luther,  the  faith  that  justi- 
fied was  faith  in  the  promise  of  Christ  made  by  the  priest;  after  this 
time  it  was  distinctly  faith  in  Christ  himself,  as  the  loving,  pitying, 
forgiving,  redeeming  Lord. 

The  development  of  Luther's  doctrinal  views  brought  him  into 
closer  contact  with  the  unseen  and  spiritual;  all  intermediaries  were 
thrust  aside,  and  he  stood  face  to  face  with  God.  His  sense  of  immediate  re- 
sponsibility to  and  reliance  on  Christ  as  his  Lord  and  helper,  gave  him  cour- 
age and  enthusiasm.  It  prepared  him  for  the  part  that  was  before  him. 
Accordingly,  when  the  Emperor's  November  letter  came,  ordering  him 
to  Worms,  and  he  was  asked  what  he  would  do,  he  answered,  "If  I 
am  summoned,  so  far  as  depends  on  me,  I  will  come,  even  if  I  have  to 
be  carried  sick;  for  if  the  Emperor  calls  me,  no  one  can  doubt  that  the 
Lord  calls  me."1  He  was  disappointed  when  the  Emperor  withdrew 
his  order.  As  the  Diet  did  not  have  distinct  notions  of  what  he  was  to 
do  at  Worms,  neither  did  he.  There  was  one  thing  he  would  not  do: 
he  would  not  retract.  He  was  willing  to  die,  if  necessary;  he  hoped 
that  the  way  might  be  opened  for  him  to  make  a  useful  impression.  His 
thoughts  were  still  of  a  discussion  or  examination,  before  learned,  pious, 
impartial  judges.  "I  am,"  he  said,  "ready  to  answer.  .  .  for  it  is  not 
from  a  presumptuous  spirit,  or  with  a  view  to  personal  advantage, 
that  I  have  taught  the  doctrine  with  which  I  am  reproached;  it  is  in 
obedience  to  my  conscience  and  to  my  oath  as  a  doctor  of  the  Holy 
Scripture;  it  is  for  the  glory  of  God  and  the  salvation  of  the  Christian 
Church,  the  good  of  the  German  nation;  and  for  the  extirpation  of  so 
much  superstition,  abuse,  evil  scandal,  tyranny,  blasphemy,  impiety."2 
In  writing  these  things  he  expected  them  to  be  made  known  to  the  Diet. 

The  safe-conduct  of  the  Emperor  was  sent  by  a  special  messenger,  and 
with  it  similar  safe-conducts  from  Duke  George  of  Saxony,  the  Elector 
Frederick  and  Philip  of  Hesse,  through  whose  territories  Luther  must 
pass.  The  messenger  also  brought  with  him  a  letter  from  the  Emperor 
to  Luther,  "the  honorable,  the  well  beloved,  the  pious.  "3  The  Emperor 
said,  "Our  sincere  desire  is  that  thou  shouldst  prepare  immediately  for 


to  Spalatin,  Dec.  21,  1520;  De  Wette,  1:  534. 

2  Letter  to  Elector  Frederick,  Jan.  25,  1521;  De  Wette,  1:  550. 

3  Ehrsamer,  lieber,  anddchtiger.     Walch,    15:   1787.      The  other    safe-conducts, 
mentioned  in  the  text,  follow  directly  after  this  in  Walch. 


148  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

this  journey,  in  order  that,  within  the  space  of  twenty-one  days  fixed 
by  our  safe-conduct,  thou  mayest  without  fail  be  present  before  us. 
Fear  neither  injury  nor  violence.  We  will  firmly  abide  by  our  aforesaid 
safe-conduct,  and  expect  that  thou  wilt  comply  with  our  summons." 
The  Emperor  also  said  that  an  inquiry  was  to  be  instituted  touching 
Luther's  doctrine  and  books;  again,  as  in  November,  he  entirely  ignored 
the  Pope's  bull  of  excommunication.  It  was  noticed  and  resented  that 
he  addressed  a  condemned  heretic  in  terms  of  honor  and  affection. 

The  messenger  reached  Wittenberg  March  24th.  His  arrival  oc- 
casioned some  anxiety;  it  brought  near  what  had  before  been  contem- 
plated from  a  distance.  Luther  was  now  to  face  in  a  practical  way  the 
question  of  going  to  the  Diet,  and  for  him  and  his  friends  the  crisis 
had  come.  They  could  not  but  recall  the  similar  case  of  John  Hus,  who, 
trusting  to  the  safe-conduct  of  Emperor  Sigismund,  went  joyously  to 
the  Council  of  Constance,  hoping  to  enlighten  and  convince  his  enemies. 
In  spite  of  the  safe-conduct  he  was  betrayed,  imprisoned  and  burned. 
It  was  a  case  that  might  well  linger  in  the  memories  of  men.  An  inci- 
dent of  the  last  day  of  Hus  before  the  council  was  especially  impressive: 
he  was  telling  his  judges  that  he  was  present  of  his  own  accord,  that 
no  power  could  have  forced  him  to  come,  that  he  came  freely,  relying 
on  the  promised  protection  of  the  Emperor;  as  he  said  this,  he  looked 
at  Sigismund — their  eyes  met,  and  the  Emperor  blushed.  A  hundred 
years  afterwards,  that  blush  was  to  influence  the  fate  of  a  greater 
than  Hus.  It  is  said  that  Charles  V  was  approached,  reminded  that 
there  was  no  obligation  to  keep  faith  with  heretics,  and  urged  to  give 
up  Luther  to  the  Pope;  the  young  Emperor  answered  that  he  did  not 
wish  to  blush  as  Sigismund  did.  Thus  the  fate  of  Hus  rendered  surer 
the  safety  of  Luther;  a  true  man,  wronged,  betrayed,  unrighteously 
done  to  death,  secured  for  others  what  he  could  not  secure  for  himself — 
the  protection  of  a  sacred  pledge.  But  who  could  tell  beforehand  that 
Charles  was  not  to  imitate  the  "false  Sigismund"? 

Many  of  Luther's  associates  in  Wittenberg  endeavored  to  dissuade 
him  from  obeying  the  Emperor's  mandate.  Well  was  it  for  his  fame 
and  work,  well  was  it  for  his  cause,  that  he  refused  to  heed  their  advice. 
Like  many  another  he  had  need  to  offer  the  prayer, "Lord,  save  me  from 
my  friends — I  can  defend  myself  against  my  enemies. "  These  affection- 
ate and  well-intentioned,  but  faint-hearted,  colleagues  were  advising  him 
to  take  a  fatal  step,  one  that  would  have  been  more  damaging  to  his 
work  than  all  the  machinations  of  his  foes — that  would,  in  fact,  have  been 
playing  his  enemies'  game,  and  bringing  the  Reformation  in  Germany  to 
a  sudden  close.  Luther  was  right:  the  champion  of  a  great  cause  is 
never  undone,  save  by  himself.  A  crisis  had  been  reached  in  the 


THE  DIET  OF  WORMS  149 

Reformation  where  a  failure  in  moral  courage  in  the  leader  would  have 
ruined  everything.  If  Luther  lacked  political  training  and  skill  in 
affairs  to  see  this,  he  knew  it  intuitively.  The  hour  had  come  for  him 
to  play  the  man,  to  dare  the  worst  that  could  befall  him,  or  to  abandon 
his  cause,  and  after  all  his  bold  words  confess  himself  a  coward  and  a 
weakling.  He  rose  to  the  occasion;  this  proved  that  he  had  martyr- 
stuff  within  him;  he  showed  that  he  was  a  great  man,  and  not  merely 
the  speaker  of  great  words.  The  moral  stature  of  Luther  was  disclosed 
to  all  the  world. 

The  journey  of  Luther  to  Worms  was  more  like  a  royal  progress  than 
the  going  of  a  condemned  heretic  to  his  doom.  At  Leipzig  the  Cup  of 
Honor  was  offered  him,  as  to  a  distinguished  and  highly  esteemed 
guest;  at  Naumberg  he  dined  at  the  burgomaster's  table,  and  a  priest 
gave  him  a  portrait  of  Savonarola,  with  an  exhortation  to  stand  fast 
in  the  truth;  at  Weimar  he  rested  a  day  and  preached,  and  Duke  John 
sent  him  money  for  the  further  expenses  of  his  journey;  at  Erfurt  Crotus 
Rubianus — he  of  the  Epistolce  Virorum  Obscurorum — now  rector  of  the 
university,  met  him  at  some  distance  from  the  city  and  escorted  him 
with  forty  horsemen  to  his  old  home  in  the  Augustinian  monastery. 
Here  he  remained  two  days,  preaching  on  Easter  Sunday  in  the  Augustin- 
ian church  to  a  congregation  that  overflowed  it.  At  Eisenach  he  had 
a  violent  attack  of  illness,  but  pressed  on  to  Frankfurt,  whence  he  wrote 
to  Spalatin:  "We  are  proceeding  on,  my  dear  friend,  notwithstanding 
the  physical  sufferings  with  which  Satan  has  afflicted  me,  in  order  to 
delay  my  progress;  for  you  must  know,  all  the  way  from  Weimar  to  this 
place,  I  have  undergone  greater  pain  that  I  ever  experienced  before. 
But  Christ  lives,  and  I  will  go  to  Worms  to  brave  the  gates  of  hell  and 
the  powers  of  the  air.  "*  Thence  he  went  to  Oppenheim,  the  last  stage 
of  his  journey  before  reaching  his  destination.  It  was  here  that  some  of 
his  friends  made  a  final  attempt  to  dissuade  him  from  risking  himself 
in  the  midst  of  foes  at  Worms,  but  he  stoutly  replied,  "I  will  go  to 
Worms,  though  there  were  as  many  devils  as  ever  there  were  tiles.  "2 

The  truth  is,  however,  that  he  was  in  far  less  immediate  danger  than 
he  and  his  friends  supposed.  Quite  apart  from  the  invincible  determina- 
tion of  Charles  to  stand  by  his  pledged  word,  it  is  doubtful  if  he  had  the 

1  De  Wette,  1 :  586. 

2  Er  mir  Spalatino  aus  Oppenheym  gin  Wurrnhs  schriebe:   Er  wolte  gin  Wurmbs, 
wenn  gleich  so  vil  Teufel  drynnen  weren,  als  ummer  Zeiegel  da  weren.     Spalatin,  p.  38. 
This  is  without  doubt  the  original  form  of  the  saying,  though  Luther  himself 
repeated  it  afterwards  with  several  verbal  alterations.     Myconius  tells  us  that, 
when  warned  at  Gotha  that  he  would  be  burned  as  a  heretic,  Luther  replied: 
"Though  they  should  make  a  fire  that  would  burn  heaven  high  from  Wittenberg 
to  Worms,  if  it  were  necessary  I  would  appear  in  the  name  of  the  Lord,  and  smite 
Behemoth  in  his  mouth  between  his  great  teeth,  and  confess  Christ  and  cause 
him  to  be  chosen."     Hist.  Ref.,  p.  39. 


150  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

physical  power  to  proceed  against  Luther,  except  by  some  secret  treach- 
ery. Open  arrest  he  would  scarcely  have  dared.  Worms  was  filled 
with  armed  retainers  of  princes  who  were  at  heart  friends  of  Luther, 
and  a  disorderly  rabble  who  made  no  secret  of  their  intention  to  resort 
to  violence  if  any  harm  came  to  their  hero.  Hutten,  not  far  away,  was 
making  dire  threats  of  the  terrible  things  he  would  do.  "  Would  to  God 
I  could  be  present  at  the  Diet, "  said  he  (there  is  no  apparent  reason 
why  he  could  not  have  been  there);  "I  would  make  a  stir!  I  would 
get  up  a  tumult  that  should  shake  some  of  them!"1  Such  bluster  is 
seldom  dangerous.  But  though  it  was  shrewdly  suspected  that  Hutten's 
bark  was  worse  than  his  bite,  he  appeared  to  have  the  full  sympathy 
and  countenance  of  Franz  von  Sickengen,  and  it  was  known  that  he 
«ould  bite.  An  attempt  to  arrest  Luther  at  Worms  would  certainly 
have  provoked  a  bloody  riot,  possibly  an  open  revolt  against  the  youth- 
ful Emperor,  who  was  already  so  beset  with  difficulties  that  it  behooved 
him  to  add  nothing  more  to  them  by  precipitate  and  dishonorable 
•conduct.  In  treating  Luther  as  he  did,  Charles  showed  not  only  a 
praiseworthy  sense  of  honor,  but  an  admirable  prudence.  When  Luther 
arrived  in  the  city  he  could  hardly  make  his  way  to  his  lodging,  so  great 
was  the  throng  curious  to  see  him.2  His  books  had  been  publicly  burned 
by  order  of  the  Emperor,  but  on  the  very  next  day  booksellers  had  offered 
new  copies,  and  peddlers  had  even  appeared  at  the  gate  of  the  palace 
with  Luther's  books  for  sale.  From  this  one  circumstance  we  may 
infer  the  state  of  feeling  in  the  town,  and  the  Emperor's  impotence  had 
he  been  disposed  to  employ  force.3 

Of  the  Worms  that  Luther  saw,  but  a  single  building  remains  to-day, 
the  great  Cathedral,  whose  lofty  towers  and  twin  domes  are  visible 
for  many  miles  through  the  Rhine  Valley.  In  the  Thirty  Years'  War 
the  town  suffered  greatly,  and  what  remained  of  it  was  reduced  to  a  heap 
of  ashes  in  the  wars  of  Louis  XIV.  It  has  been  rebuilt,  and  to-day  is 
a  stirring,  lively  city,  but  it  is  another  Worms  than  the  Worms  of  Luther 
that  the  traveler  sees  now.  In  Luther's  day  there  was  a  stately  episcopal 
palace  not  far  from  the  Cathedral,  and  in  the  great  hall  of  this  palace 

1  Walch,  15:  1845  seq.    Hutten,  Op.  4:292. 

2  See  Veit  Warbeck's  account  in  a  letter  to  Duke  John  of  Saxony,  Forstemann's 
Neues  Urkundenbuch,  p.  68. 

3  Impartial  observers  confirm  the  accounts  of  Luther's  popularity  at  Worms. 
For  example,  the  Venetian  ambassador  wrote  to  his  government:  "I  cannot  tell 
you  how  much  favor  he  enjoys  here,  which  is  of  such  a  nature  that,  on  the  Em- 
peror's departure,  I  suspect  that  it  will  produce  some  bad  effects,  most  especially 
against  the  prelates  of  Germany.     In  truth,  had  this  man  been  prudent,   had  he 
restricted  himself  to  his  first  propositions  and  not  entangled  himself  in  manifest 
errors  about  the  faith,  he  would  have  been,  I  do  not  say  favored,  but  adored  by 
the  whole  of  Germany." — "Calendar  of  State  Papers,"  Venetian,  376.     Cf.  Ale- 
ander's  Despatch  of  Feb.  8,  in  Brieger,  Aleander  und  Luther,  p.  48. 


THE  DIET  OF  WORMS  151 

the  meetings  of  the  Diet  were  held.1  As  this  was  the  first  Diet  of  the  new 
Emperor,  much  important  business  was  to  be  transacted,  and  a  large 
and  brilliant  gathering  of  electors,  princes,  nobles,  knights,  representa- 
tives of  free  cities,  had  come  together  from  all  Germany.  It  requires 
a  little  effort  on  our  part  to  realize  that  this  hearing  of  Luther,  which  is 
to  us  the  chief  significance  of  this  Diet,  was  but  an  episode  in  its  pro- 
ceedings, albeit  an  episode  of  unusual  interest. 

This  first  Diet  of  the  new  reign,  in  fact,  marks  not  only  a  religious 
but  a  constitutional  crisis,  in  the  Empire.  In  the  person  of  Charles  V 
the  Emperor  once  more  began  to  seem  a  great  figure,  but  this  was  because 
of  his  immense  hereditary  possessions,  greater  than  had  ever  before 
been  united  under  a  single  European  ruler  since  Charlemagne.  From 
Spain  he  could  draw  soldiers  whose  numbers  were  limited  only  by  his 
ability  to  pay  them,  and  whose  fighting  qualities  were  unsurpassed  in 
Europe;  while  from  the  rich  Netherlands  and  from  the  mines  of  his  colo- 
nies in  the  New  World  he  could  draw  the  money  to  equip  them  and  keep 
them  in  the  field.  This  was  what  made  Charles  a  great  prince;  the 
Empire  was  his  weakness,  not  his  strength;  it  increased  his  obligations, 
not  his  resources. 

At  Worms,  Charles  represented  the  cause  of  national  union,  the  con- 
stitutional monarchy;  the  princes  stood  for  the  existing  oligarchy;  each 
was  contending  for  the  mastery,  or  at  least  for  a  definite  advantage. 
There  was  a  great  opportunity  for  a  second  Charles  the  Great  to  recon- 
stitute the  German  Empire,  and  secure  the  unity  in  religion  of  the 
German  people.  Elector  Frederick  declined  the  task — he  was  right; 
he  was  not  strong  enough,  but  in  a  different  sense  from  that  which  he 
meant.  The  young  Charles  proved  not  to  be  great — in  this  case  the  op- 
portunity did  not  bring  forth  the  man.  But  an  obstacle  even  more  insur- 
mountable than  lack  of  great  abilities  was  in  his  way:  his  lack  of  under- 
standing of  the  German  people,  and  their  failure  to  understand  him. 
Germany  had  idealized  Charles,  and  in  a  burst  of  national  feeling  had 
impelled  the  electors  to  choose  a  "German"  ruler.  They  could  not 
have  acted  in  a  more  complete  misunderstanding  of  the  facts.  Charles 
was  German  only  in  that  his  grandfather  was  a  German,  but  the 
Habsburg  blood  flowed  in  his  veins  twice  diluted,  once  with  the  French 
blood  of  his  grandmother,  Mary  of  Burgundy,  and  again  with  the  Span- 
ish blood  of  his  mother,  Joanna,  daughter  of  Isabella  of  Castile.  He 
used  to  describe  himself  as  a  Fleming,  from  the  accident  of  his  birth  in 
Ghent,  but  the  maternal  strain  was  most  prominent  in  his  nature,  and 

1  We  know  this  positively  from  Spalatin,  who  was  present  with  Elector  Frederick. 
Annales,  p.  39.  For  a  description  of  Worms  before  the  Thirty  Years'  War,  see 
"Coryat's  Crudities,"  Vol.  II. 


152  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

it  was  a  Spanish  prince  who  met  the  Diet  at  Worms,  unable  to  speak 
or  understand  the  language  of  his  new  subjects. 

Though  not  a  man  of  the  first  intellectual  and  moral  power,  Charles 
did  not  fail  chiefly  by  reason  of  this  defect.  He  was  the  greatest  man 
of  his  age — of  the  rulers  of  Europe,  that  is  to  say.  At  the  time  of  his 
election  little  was  known  of  his  personality,  but  he  was  esteemed  by 
most  of  those  who  then  met  him  as  a  cipher  or  a  simpleton.  Leo  X 
called  him  ce  bon  enfant  I'empereur,  with  scorn  and  contempt.  Aleander, 
who  had  seen  much  of  him  at  close  range,  was  of  a  different  opinion. 
This  scholar  and  man  of  the  world,  a  shrewd  judge  of  men,  decided  at 
his  first  interview  with  Charles  that  here  was  a  prince  well  endowed 
with  prudence  far  beyond  his  years — one  who  had  much  more  at  the 
back  of  his  head  than  he  carried  on  his  face.  He  never  had  occasion 
to  change  his  opinion.1 

Before  the  question  of  Luther  came  before  the  Diet,  weeks  had  been 
spent  in  wrangling  about  the  constitutional  question,  and  it  was  still 
dragging  along  when  he  reached  Worms.  The  princes  proposed  a 
permanent  imperial  Council  (Reichsregiment) ,  which  should  exercise 
the  chief  functions  of  rule,  whether  the  Emperor  were  present  or  absent, 
and  should  therefore  decide  all  imperial  questions,  domestic  as  well  as 
foreign.  The  Emperor  should  not  even  be  represented  in  this  Council, 
save  as  his  hereditary  domains  should  elect  members;  but  the  Estates 
of  the  empire,  and  even  the  towns,  should  elect  representatives.  Under 
such  a  constitution  the  imperial  power  would  have  been  absolutely 
extinguished,  and  Germany  would  have  become  a  federated  oligarchy. 
Charles,  on  his  part,  proposed  that  there  should  be  a  representative 
Council,  indeed,  but  that  it  should  sit  only  during  his  absence  from  Ger- 
many, and  then  under  a  regent  appointed  by  himself.  Of  twenty  mem- 
bers he  should  have  power  to  appoint  six,  and  while  the  members  repre- 
senting the  Estates  should  be  changed  quarterly  his  nominees  should  be 
permanent.  Direction  of  foreign  affairs  was  to  be  reserved  to  the 
Emperor  himself,  and  his  assent  should  be  required  for  all  domestic 
measures  of  importance.  This  would  have  made  the  imperial  power 
a  reality,  such  as  no  Emperor  of  recent  times  certainly  had  possessed. 

As  usual,  a  compromise  was  the  result  of  these  conflicting  claims.  The 
Emperor  was  permitted  to  nominate  the  president  of  the  Council  and 
four  members  out  of  twenty-two.  The  Council  should  sit  only  in  the 
Emperor's  absence,  but  on  his  return  should  be  an  advisory  body 
until  a  Diet  was  convoked.  The  power  to  transact  ordinary  business  was 
conceded  to  the  Diet  in  the  Emperor's  absence,  but  the  decision  of  im- 

1  Kidd,  p.  81.  As  throwing  light  on  the  character  of  Charles,  it  may  be  men- 
tioned that  his  favorite  motto,  though  he  used  others,  was  plus  oultre. 


THE  DIET  OF  WORMS  153 

portant  matters  was  reserved  to  him;  while  as  to  foreign  policy  a  check 
was  placed  on  the  imperial  authority  by  the  promise  of  Charles  to  form 
no  alliances  affecting  the  Empire  without  its  consent.  On  the  whole, 
Charles  was  considerably  the  gainer  by  these  prolonged  debates.  Much 
was  done  to  strengthen  the  imperial  Council,  which  during  the  subse- 
quent years  of  the  Reformation  had  so  prominent  a  part  in  affairs.  An 
attempt  was  made  also  to  strengthen  the  imperial  finance,  for  just  at 
this  juncture  the  imperial  treasury  was  at  a  very  low  ebb,  and  the  other 
resources  of  Charles  were  not  immediately  available  in  proportion  to 
his  wants.  It  has  been  well  for  us  to  pause  for  the  consideration  of 
these  matters;  for  they  not  only  are  indispensable  for  an  understanding 
of  subsequent  events,  but  have  an  important  bearing  on  the  matter 
in  hand — they  help  to  explain  the  comparative  mildness  with  which 
Luther  was  treated.  A  strong  party  in  the  Diet,  possibly  a  majority, 
were  sufficiently  in  his  favor  to  make  it  inexpedient  for  the  Emperor  to 
do  anything  to  antagonize  them,  while  his  personal  affairs  and  his 
dynastic  position  were  so  delicately  poised. 

It  was  about  noon  of  April  16th  that  Luther  entered  the  city,1  and  the 
hour  was  fixed  for  his  hearing  the  following  day,  at  4  P.M.  On  account 
of  the  crowds,  he  was  conducted  to  the  palace  by  devious  back  ways, 
and  introduced  into  the  presence  of  the  Emperor  and  the  Estates.  No 
more  imposing  or  magnificent  scene  could  then  have  been  found  in  the 
world  than  that  Diet.  On  a  throne  raised  upon  a  dais  sat  the  Emperor, 
serenely  beautiful  in  his  youth,  of  whose  political  deftness  and  strength 
of  will  his  placid  face  gave  little  token,  as  he  listened  with  unmoved 
features  to  the  proceedings — the  most  powerful  monarch  at  that  moment 
in  the  world,  in  spite  of  some  immediate  and  temporary  embarrassments, 
and  invested  as  Emperor  with  a  sanctity  that  no  other  earthly  ruler  could 
claim.  At  his  side  stood  his  brother,  the  Archduke  Ferdinand  of  Austria, 
who  was  to  play  an  important  part  in  the  coming  struggle  for  reform  and 
liberty  in  Germany.  On  either  side  were  grouped  the  electoral  princes. 
First  in  dignity,  in  the  absence  of  the  King  of  Bohemia,  was  the  Arch- 
bishop of  Mainz,  whose  acquaintance  we  have  already  made,  the  primate 
of  Germany,  clad  in  his  gorgeous  robes,  arch-chancellor  of  the  Empire 
throughout  Germany.  As  it  was  in  his  diocese  that  the  Diet  was  held, 
it  was  his  recognized  privilege  to  stand  on  the  Emperor's  right,  while 

i"Two  thousand  people  accompanied  him  to  his  lodgings  in  the  house  of  the 
Knights  of  St.  John.  In  front  rode  the  Imperial  herald,  then  Luther  with  his 
three  friends  [Amsdorf,  Petzensteiner,  a  brother  Augustinian,  and  Swaven,  a  rep- 
resentative of  the  Wittenberg  studentsl;  then  on  horseback,  Drs.  Jerome  Schurf 
and  Justus  Jonas,  and  an  escort  from  Erfurt;  and,  in  the  rear,  his  Saxon  friends." 
Jacobs,  "  Luther,"  p.  186.  All  borne  out  by  the  contemporary  records.  Schurf 
was  professor  of  jurisprudence  at  Wittenberg,  and  a  trusted  adviser  of  the  Elector 
and  Luther. 


154  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

the  first  place  on  the  left  was  taken  by  the  Archbishop  of  Cologne,  arch- 
chancellor  of  the  Empire  for  Italy.  Next  to  the  Archbishop  of  Mainz 
came  the  arch-steward  of  the  Empire,  Count  John,  of  the  Palatine, 
who  bore  into  the  Diet  the  imperial  orb.  First  of  the  secular  electors, 
next  to  the  Archbishop  of  Cologne,  was  Elector  Frederick,  grand  marshal, 
who  bore  the  imperial  sword  before  the  Emperor.  Him  we  already  know 
very  well.  The  other  electors  were  the  Archbishop  of  Trier,  a  just  but 
timid  man,  a  warm  friend  of  Elector  Frederick,  who  was  distrusted  for 
his  moderate  opinions  by  the  nuncio,  Aleander;  and  Margrave  Joachim, 
of  Brandenburg,  yet  faithful  to  the  Church,  but  later  to  join  the  Lutheran 
movement.  There  were  four  other  Margraves  present,  and  twenty-seven 
Dukes,  easily  chief  among  whom  stood  Duke  George  of  Saxony,  staunch 
old  German,  and  staunch  old  Catholic  too.  Two  Landgraves  are  men- 
tioned, the  one  of  note  being  Philip  of  Hesse,  afterwards  surnamed  the 
Magnanimous,  then  but  a  youth  of  seventeen,  later  the  first  prince  to 
introduce  the  Reformation  into  his  domains.  Among  these  secular 
princes  were  grouped  a  goodly  array  of  prelates,  in  full  canonicals — the 
Archbishops  of  Bremen,  Salzburg  and  Panorm,  the  latter  a  Cardinal; 
the  bishop  of  Wallas,  also  a  Cardinal,  and  eleven  other  bishops  and 
four  abbots.  In  all  there  were  two  hundred  and  six  persons  in  at- 
tendance at  this  Diet.  And  this  does  not  include  a  brilliant  galaxy 
of  ambassadors  and  honored  visitors  representing  the  principal  rulers 
of  Europe,  conspicuous  among  them  the  Archbishop  of  Toledo,  and 
most  important  of  all,  the  two  papal  legates,  Aleander  and  Carac- 
cioli. 

Into  this  presence  was  led  a  single,  black-robed  monk,  whose  "cares 
and  studies  had  made  him  so  thin,"  as  a  friend  writes  of  him,  "that  one 
may  count  all  the  bones  of  his  body."  Remember  that  this  man  had  never 
seen  a  court  before  this  day,  that  he  was  a  peasant  by  birth  and  breeding, 
and  separated  by  that  fact  from  his  judges  by  a  gulf  whose  breadth  and 
depth  we  can  but  faintly  realize.  In  his  very  blood  was  a  hereditary 
reverence  for  rank  and  authority,  and  the  effect  of  such  an  assemblage 
upon  him  was  certain  to  be  tremendous  and  awe-inspiring.  It  would 
flutter  the  pulses  of  any  one  of  us,  it  nearly  paralyzed  Luther!  It  was 
one  thing  to  write  bold  words,  from  the  quiet  and  security  of  his  cell 
at  Wittenberg — to  lecture  and  denounce  princes  and  prelates  on  paper; 
it  was  quite  another  thing  to  stand  in  the  presence  of  these  formidable 
persons,  look  them  bravely  in  the  face  and  speak  the  same  bold  words. 
Would  Luther  do  it?  Could  Luther  do  it? 

At  first  it  seemed  that  he  could  not.  The  marshal  commanded  him 
not  to  speak  unless  he  was  spoken  to,  and  to  answer  promptly  and  truly 
the  questions  put  to  him.  Aleander  had  arranged  the  procedure.  The 


THE  DIET  OF  WORMS  155 

jurist  Eck,1  official  of  the  Archbishop  of  Trier,  then  put  to  him,  first  in 
Latin  afterwards  in  German,  two  questions:  "Do  you  acknowledge  your- 
self the  author  of  the  writings  published  in  your  name,  which  are  here 
before  me?  Will  you  consent  to  retract  certain  of  the  doctrines  that  are 
contained  therein?"  At  Schurf's  suggestion  the  titles  of  the  books  were 
read,  and  Luther  acknowledged  them  to  be  his.  He  was  again  asked, 
"Will  you  retract  the  doctrines  therein?"  The  crucial  moment  of 
Luther's  life  had  come,  and  he  did  not  seem  to  be  ready  with  an  answer. 
He  was  plainly  disconcerted  by  the,  proceedings:  this  was  not  the  ex- 
pected examination  before  impartial  judges,  with  an  opportunity  to  defend 
his  views  from  Scripture,  and  a  retraction  to  be  made  after  he  had  been 
proved  wrong  by  the  Scriptures  and  by  sound  arguments.  This  was 
but  a  repetition  of  what  he  had  been  hearing  from  the  beginning,  of  what 
Cajetan  had  said  to  him  at  Augsburg — Rome's  one  word  all  along  had 
been  "retract."  There  had  been  no  serious  attempt  to  refute  him,  there 
had  been  no  idea  whatever  of  hearing  him. 

In  a  low  voice  that  could  hardly  be  heard  even  by  those  near  him  he 
began  his  answer,  but  as  he  proceeded  seemed  to  gain  courage,  The 
question,  he  said,  was  so  serious,  concerning  as  it  did  eternal  salvation 
and  the  free  proclamation  of  the  divine  word,  that  it  would  be  rash  and 
dangerous  for  him  to  reply  until  he  had  meditated  on  it  in  silence  and 
retreat.  -Wherefore  he  besought  his  sacred  Majesty  to  grant  him  time 
to  reply  with  full  knowledge  of  the  point  at  issue, 

At  this  answer,  there  was  no  little  surprise  hi  the  Diet,  but  after  some 
deliberation  it  was  announced  that,  though  Luther  well  knew  what  he 
had  been  sent  for,  and  had  had  ample  time  to  prepare  his  reply,  his 
Majesty  of  his  grace  would  give  him  another  twenty-four  hours.  The 
criticism  was  no  doubt  warranted,  and  many  historians  and  biographers 
of  Luther  have  unnecessarily  puzzled  themselves  and  their  readers  by 
concocting  ingenious  explanations  of  Luther's  conduct  on  this  occasion, 
as  if  the  strange  and  disturbing  circumstances  in  which  he  found  himself 
were  not  a  quite  sufficient  explanation.  Perhaps  he  ought  to  have  known 
what  to  expect,  perhaps  he  ought  to  have  been  prepared;  but  the  reality, 
when  he  came  to  face  it,  watf  so  much  more  awful  than  anything  he  had 
expected,  that  for  the  time  he  lost  that  command  of  his  faculties  which 
he  felt  to  be  necessary  to  present  his  cause  adequately.  Anybody  who 
has  ever  had  an  attack  of  what  we  call  "stage  fright"  will  know  just 
how  Luther  felt,  and  why  he  decided  that  he  must  have  a  chance  to 
recover  his  composure  and  mental  poise  before  he  attempted  to  speak 
the  words  on  which  so  much  depended. 

1  Hutten  calls  him  einen  gam  ungelehrten  Sophisten.  Letter  to  Pirkheimer, 
Walch,  15:  1938. 


156  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

Luther's  apparent  failure  to  rise  to  the  situation  and  do  what  his 
friends  and  admirers  expected  of  him,  not  only  surprised  but  dismayed 
them.  It  correspondingly  encouraged  Aleander  and  the  papal  party. 
The  Emperor  was  not  favorably  impressed,  and  is  reported  to  have  said 
to  his  courtiers,  "This  man  will  never  make  a  heretic  of  me."  News 
of  what  had  happened  was  speedily  circulated  through  the  city,  and  on 
his  way  to  his  lodgings  many  tried  by  friendly  words  and  exhortations 
to  renew  Luther's  courage,  urging  him  to  stand  fast  for  the  truth.  The 
young  Landgrave  of  Hesse,  who  had  seen  Luther  that  day  for  the  first 
time,  came  to  his  lodging,  and  closed  a  conversation  by  saying,  "Dear 
Doctor,  if  you  are  in  the  right,  so  may  our  Lord  help  you."  On  his 
way  home,  some  say,  but  more  probably  the  next  day  on  his  way  to  the 
palace,  George  von  Frundsberg,  a  well-known  mercenary  captain  of 
the  time,  clapped  Luther  on  the  shoulder  with  the  encouraging  words: 
"Little  monk,  little  monk,  now  goest  thou  thy  way  to  take  a  stand 
such  as  I,  and  many  a  commander,  even  in  our  sharpest  battles,  have 
never  taken.  If  thou  art  of  good  intent  and  certain  of  thy  affair,  go  in 
God's  name  and  be  comforted — God  will  not  forsake  thee."  That 
there  had  been  no  wavering  in  Luther's  intent,  no  question  as  to  what 
his  answer  would  be,  nothing  more  than  a  temporary  nervous  weakness, 
is  evident  from  a  letter  that  he  wrote  that  evening  from  his  lodgings 
to  a  friend,  "But  I  shall  not  withdraw  a  single  jot,  Christ  being  my 
helper." 

On  the  18th  Luther  appeared  again  before  the  Diet.  Their  political 
business  had  occupied  the  Estates,  so  that  it  was  already  growing  dark 
when  Luther  was  brought  in.  Again  the  question  was  put  to  him,  but 
in  somewhat  different  form  from  that  of  the  previous  day.  "Do  you 
wish  to  defend  all  the  books  that  you  have  acknowledged  as  your  own, 
or  to  retract  any  part  of  them?"  He  made  his  answer,  first  in  German 
and  then  by  request  he  repeated  it  in  Latin.1  He  began  by  asking 
pardon  if  he  should  violate  any  etiquette,  since  he  was  nothing  but  a  poor 
monk,  unaccustomed  to  courts,  who  had  never  preached  or  written 
aught  save  for  the  glory  of  God  and  the  honor  of  the  Gospel.  Among 
the  books  that  he  avowed  were  three  classes,  he  went  on  to  say.  The 
first  were  written  for  the  edification  of  believers,  and  his  adversaries 
admitted  them  to  be  harmless,  and  even  useful.  He  could  not  retract 
these.  In  another  class  of  books  he  had  attacked  the  Papacy  and  the 
doctrine  of  papists.  None  could  deny  that  the  papal  laws  had  devoured 
as  a  prey  this  noble  Germany  If  he  should  retract  these  books,  he  would 

1  Many  authorities  say  just  the  reverse,  that  he  spoke  first  in  Latin,  then  in 
German;  but  the  text  follows  Luther,  who  could  hardly  be  wrong  on  such  a  point, 
while  others  might  easily  confuse  the  order  in  their  later  recollections. 


THE  DIET  OF  WORMS  157 

but  be  adding  to  the  force  of  the  Roman  tyranny,  and  opening,  not  merely 
the  windows,  but  the  doors,  to  great  impiety.  How  could  he  thus 
strengthen  the  reign  of  iniquity?  In  this  Luther  struck  skillfully  and 
strongly  the  chords  of  German  nationalism,  and  many  hearts  hi  that 
assemblage  must  have  responded  to  what  he  said. 

Finally,  said  he,  there  was  another  class  of  books,  polemic,  written 
against  his  adversaries  who  had  advocated  the  Roman  tyranny.  These, 
he  confessed,  had  been  at  times  too  violent,  and  he  did  not  maintain 
that  his  conduct  had  been  faultless.  But  the  question,  he  said,  is  not 
concerning  my  conduct,  but  concerning  the  doctrine  of  Christ;  and 
therefore  he  could  not  disown  even  these  writings,  for  Rome  would  make 
use  of  such  disavowal  to  extend  her  oppression.  He  then  demanded 
evidence  against  himself  and  a  fair  trial.  "I  stand  here,"  he  declared, 
"  ready,  if  anyone  can  prove  me  to  have  written  falsely,  to  retract  my 
errors,  and  to  throw  my  books  into  the  fire  with  my  own  hands."  He 
had  weighed  well  the  strife  that  his  doctrine  would  bring  into  the  world, 
but  our  Lord  had  said,  "I  came  not  to  send  peace,  but  a  sword."  "Be- 
ware," said  he,  "lest  if  you  condemn  the  divine  word,  that  word  send 
forth  upon  you  a  deluge  of  ills."  He  cited  the  case  of  Pharaoh,  and 
the  ruin  he  brought  upon  his  country  by  seeking  to  reign  through  what 
he  thought  to  be  wisdom,  and  added,  "I  seek  not  to  offer  advice  to  your 
high  and  mighty  understandings,  but  I  owed  this  testimony  of  a  loving 
heart  to  my  native  Germany." 

It  was  a  brave  speech,  a  strong  speech,  delivered  with  self-possession 
and  in  a  clear  voice  that  could  be  heard  by  the  whole  assembly — a 
striking  contrast  in  every  way  to  his  manner  of  the  previous  day.  It 
was  no  doubt  a  surprise  and  a  disappointment  to  the  papal  party,  but 
to  lovers  of  the  Gospel  truth  and  lovers  of  their  country  as  inspiriting 
as  the  blast  of  a  trumpet.  Hardly  had  his  words  ceased  when  Eck  rose 
and  angrily  exclaimed  that  Luther  had  not  answered  the  question,  that 
this  was  not  an  occasion  for  general  discussion,  but  to  ascertain  from 
Luther  whether  he  would  retract  his  errors,  which  were  the  errors  of 
Hus  and  other  heretics,  and  had  been  condemned  by  the  Council  of 
Constance  and  at  other  times  by  the  Church.  What  was  wanted  was 
a  straightforward  answer,  non  cornute,  Would  Luther  retract  or  not? 

Luther  replied  with  some  heat:  "Since  your  imperial  Majesty  and 
highnesses  demand  a  simple  answer,  I  will  give  you  one  without  horns 
or  teeth:  Unless  I  am  convinced  of  error  by  the  testimony  of  Scripture 
or  plain  reason  (for  I  put  no  faith  in  Popes  or  councils  alone,  which  have 
erred  and  contradicted  each  other  often)  I  am  overcome  by  the  Scriptures1 

1  To  understand  fully  what  Luther  meant  by  appealing  to  the  Scriptures  one 
must  read  his  later  writings.  For  some  illustrations,  see  Alzog's  "Church  His- 
tory," 3:  38,  39,  esp.  note  on  39. 


158  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

that  I  have  cited  and  my  conscience  is  bound  the  word  of  God.  I  can- 
not and  will  not  retract  anything,  for  it  is  neither  safe  nor  right  to  act 
against  one's  conscience.  Such  is  my  profession  of  faith,  and  expect 
no  other  from  me."  Having  given  this  answer  hi  both  languages,  he 
added  "God  help  me,  Amen."1 

Still  Eck  was  dissatisfied,  and  a  sharp  altercation  followed  between 
him  and  Luther,  Eck  saying  that  Luther  could  not  prove  that  councils 
had  erred,  and  Luther  affirming  that  he  both  could  and  would  prove  it 
at  any  time  that  might  be  assigned  him.  The  hour  being  late,  the 
Emperor  cut  this  short  and  dismissed  the  assembly.  Luther  returned 
to  his  lodgings  full  of  joy.  An  eye-witness  says  that  as  he  reached  his 
temporary  house,  he  threw  up  his  hands  with  a  joyful  gesture,  crying, 
"I  am  through,  I  am  through."  Well  might  he  rejoice.  A  peasant's 
son  had  stood  before  Caesar,  an  obscure  German  professor  had  lifted 
his  voice  against  the  theologians  of  the  world,  a  poor  monk  had  withstood 
the  sentence  of  the  supreme  Pontiff  of  Christendom,  and  made  good  every 
bold  word  that  he  had  written.  In  the  presence  of  the  most  powerful 
of  Church  and  State  in  Europe  he  had  maintained  the  supremacy  of 
the  Scriptures  as  the  rule  of  a  Christian  man's  life,  and  the  inviolable  rights 
of  the  individual  conscience  against  the  tyranny  of  Popes  and  councils. 
Much  depended  on  the  speaking  of  those  words.  Luther  at  Worms 
represented  the  cause  of  Christian  liberty,  the  progress  of  Christian 
civilization,  and  his  recantation  and  submission  would  have  been  an 
incalculable  disaster  to  the  world.2  Never  again  was  he  to  be  so  heroic 
a  figure,  never  so  truly  powerful,  because  never  again  would  his  voice 
be  so  truly  the  voice  of  the  German  people.  The  cumulative  grievances 
of  Germany  against  Rome,  no  less  than  Germany's  demand  for  relief 
from  spiritual  despotism,  found  in  him  their  mouthpiece. 

In  the  evening  he  held  a  sort  of  reception.  A  large  number  of  the 
greatest  nobles  and  prelates  at  the  Diet  came  to  see  him  and  congratulate 
him  on  his  bold  defense.  He  had  touched  the  heart  of  Germany  by  his 

1 1  have  followed  in  this  account  of  the  Worms  hearing,  Luther's  own  account, 
LOL,  6:  5  seq.;  LDS,  64:374  seq.;  Walch,  15: 1917  seq.  Cf.  his  later  account,  a  few 
days  before  his  death,  LDS,  64:  366  seq.  This  is,  however,  confirmed  at  every 
important  point,  and  sometimes  as  to  the  very  words,  by  a  despatch  of  Aleander's, 
dated  Worms,  April  19.  "And  as  Martin  went  out  from  the  Imperial  hall,"  says 
Aleander,  "he  raised  his  hand  on  high  after  the  manner  of  the  German  soldiers, 
when  they  exult  over  a  good  blow  in  a  tournament."  Brieger,  Aleander  und 
Luther,  p.  153.  Cochlseus  gives  a  briefer  account  of  the  proceedings,  but  virtually 
confirms  Luther's.  He  says  Luther  closed  with  the  words,  Gott  helfe  mir,  Amen. 
Commentaria,  p.  34.  Spalatin  gives  the  final  words  as,  So  helf  mir  Gott,  denn 
keyn  Widerspruch  kann  ich  nicht  thun.  Luther,  however,  gives  the  words  that 
have  become  traditional:  Hie  stehe  ich,  ich  kann  nicht  anders,  Gott  helfe  mir,  Amen. 
All  these  words  were  probably  spoken  by  Luther  during  the  hearing,  but  not  all 
in  a  single  sentence,  as  here  combined.  See  Schaff,  6:  309  for  a  full  critical  dis- 
cussion of  this  question;  also  Kostlin,  1:  419. 

2  At  the  inn,  Mir  Spalatino  sagt:  Wenn  er  tausend  Kopf  hett,  so  Wolter  sie  ihm 
ehr  alle  lassen  abhauen,  denn  ein  Widerspruch  thun. 


THE  DIET  OF  WORMS  159 

speech,  and  many  who  now  saw  and  heard  him  for  the  first  time  were, 
like  Landgrave  Philip,  permanently  won  to  the  cause  of  religious  reform. 
"The  doctor's  little  room,"  writes  Spalatin,  "could  not  contain  all  the 
visitors  who  presented  themselves.  I  saw  among  them  Duke  Wilhelm 
of  Brunswick,  Landgrave  Philip  of  Hesse,  Count  Wilhelm  of  Henneberg, 
the  Elector  Frederick  and  many  others. "  Curiously  enough,  considering 
the  intimate  relations  that  had  been  established  between  them  for  a  long 
time,  this  was  the  first  meeting  face  to  face  of  the  Elector  and  Luther.1 
When  the  Diet  met  again  the  following  morning,  Charles  read  to  them 
a  very  important  document,  written  and  signed  by  his  own  hand. 
There  is  no  reason  to  doubt  that  it  was  his  unassisted  composition;  at 
any  rate,  it  represented  his  inmost  sentiments  and  clearly  stated  what 
were  to  be  the  guiding  principles  of  his  reign.  He  said: 

My  predecessors,  the  most  Christian  emperors  of  the  Ger- 
man race,  the  Austrian  Archdukes  and  Dukes  of  Burgundy,  were 
until  death  the  truest  sons  of  the  Catholic  Church,  defending  and 
extending  their  belief  to  the  glory  of  God,  the  propagation  of  the 
faith,  the  salvation  of  their  souls.  They  have  left  behind  them 
the  holy  Catholic  rites,  that  I  should  live  and  die  therein,  and  so 
until  now  with  God's  help  I  have  lived,  as  becomes  a  Christian 
Emperor.  What  my  forefathers  established  at  Constance  and  other 
councils,  it  is  my  privilege  to  uphold.  A  single  monk,  led  astray  by 
private  judgment,  has  set  himself  against  the  faith  held  by  all  Chris- 
tians for  a  thousand  years  and  more,  and  impudently  concludes  that 
all  Christians  up  to  now  have  erred.  I  have  therefore  resolved  to 
stake  upon  this  cause  all  my  dominions,  my  friends,  my  body  and 
my  blood,  my  life  and  soul.  For  myself  and  you,  sprung  from  the 
holy  German  nation,  appointed  by  peculiar  privilege  defenders  of 
the  faith,  it  would  be  a  grievous  disgrace,  an  eternal  stain  upon 
ourselves  and  our  posterity,  if  in  this  our  day,  not  only  heresy, 
but  its  very  suspicion,  were  due  to  our  defect.  After  Luther's  stiff- 
necked  reply,  I  now  repent  that  I  have  so  long  delayed  proceed- 
ings against  him  and  his  false  doctrines.  I  have  now  resolved 
never  again,  under  any  circumstances,  to  hear  him.  Under  pro- 
tection of  his  safe-conduct  he  shall  be  escorted  home,  but  for- 
bidden to  preach  and  to  seduce  men  with  his  evil  doctrines  and 
incite  them  to  rebellion.  I  warn  you  to  give  witness  to  your  opin- 
ion as  good  Christians  and  in  accordance  with  your  vows.2 

The  reading  of  this  document  produced  a  great  sensation;  it  is  said 
that  many  of  the  princes  turned  as  pale  as  death.  They  felt  themselves 
to  be  in  as  great  peril  as  Luther  himself.  And  now  the  Diet  had  still 
to  answer  the  question,  What  shall  be  done  with  the  condemned  heretic? 
The  man  without  office,  wielding  no  earthly  power,  from  his  peculiar 

1  Denn  ich  seine  Stimm  mein  Lebenlang  nie  gehtiret,  noch  sein  Angesicht  gesehen, 
ohne  zu  Wormes  auf  dem  Reichstage.     Wider  Hans  Wurst,  LDS,  26:  67. 

2  Kidd,  p.  85.    Armstrong,  "The  Emperor  Charles  V,"  1:  70. 


160  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

position  was  himself  free,  and  the  course  of  things  was  to  be  determined 
by  his  will.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Emperor,  the  master  of  the  world, 
was  the  slave  of  circumstances.  He  did  not  wish  to  condemn  Luther; 
he  did  not  know  how  not  to  condemn  him.  If  Luther  should  be 
condemned  no  one  knew  what  would  come  of  it.  Many  sympathized 
with  him  personally,  and  many  more  sympathized  with  his  cause.  If 
he  should  not  be  condemned,  there  was  already  revolution,  the  end  of 
the  papal  power,  and  for  this  the  world  was  not  yet  prepared.  In  their 
perplexity  moderate  men  of  both  parties  turned  to  the  old  plan  of 
compromise — there  must  be  more  conferences  with  Luther. 

The  instigator  of  the  plan  of  renewed  negotiations  was  Albert,  Arch- 
bishop of  Mainz.  He  was  a  German;  he  saw  the  dangers  threatening 
Germany,  and  was  anxious  to  avoid  them.  Luther  must  be  heard  before 
some  German  of  candor  and  ability,  a  man  who  would  command  the 
confidence  of  both  parties.  Such  a  man  was  the  Archbishop  of  Trier, 
and  he  was  chosen  to  conduct  the  proposed  conference.  It  met  April 
24th,  in  the  Archbishop's  palace.  There  were  present  the  Elector  of  Bran- 
denburg, Duke  George  of  Saxony  "and  some  other  great  men."  Wehe 
(Vehus),  a  lawyer  of  Baden,  was  the  spokesman.  He  began  by  telling 
Luther  that  the  princes  had  sent  for  him  not  to  dispute  (always  the 
same  old  formula!)  but  to  treat  with  him  in  a  friendly  manner,  and  to 
admonish  him  privately  of  those  things  that  seemed  chiefly  to  concern 
him.  As  to  councils,  Wehe  admitted  that  they  had  sometimes  decreed 
different,  but  never  contradictory,  things.  But  granting  that  they  had 
erred,  still  they  had  not  fallen  so  low  that  every  private  man  might 
despise  and  trample  on  their  authority.  Luther's  books,  if  care  were 
not  taken,  would  cause  great  trouble.  Men  would  interpret  them  ac- 
cording to  their  inclinations  and  desires,  and  what  he  meant  for  freedom 
they  would  take  for  license.  His  teaching  was  especially  dangerous  in 
that  age,  which,  said  Wehe,  was  more  corrupt  than  any  former  age  had 
been.  It  was  true  that  some  of  Luther's  books  were  harmless,  even 
useful — this  was  the  case  with  his  earlier  books — but  those  he  had  re- 
cently written  contained  things  inconsistent  with  religion  and  piety. 
These  might  well  justify  the  condemnation  of  all  that  he  had  written; 
his  work  was  to  be  judged  by  its  latest  development,  just  as  a  tree  is 
judged,  not  by  its  blossoms,  but  by  its  fruit.  This  hurtful  advance  in 
his  teachings  ought  to  startle  Luther  himself.  "You  ought,"  he  said, 
"to  think  of  both  your  own  salvation  and  of  that  of  others;  and  consider 
if  it  be  fitting  that  those  whom  Christ  by  his  own  death  had  rescued  from 
everlasting  death,  should  by  your  books  be  seduced  from  the  Church, 
and  so  perish."  He  reminded  Luther  that  even  in  civil  affairs  nothing 
was  better  than  the  observance  of  the  laws,  without  which  no  State  or 


THE  DIET  OF  WORMS  161 

government  could  subsist;  and  if  the  decrees  of  the  Fathers  were  to 
count  for  nothing,  everything  in  the  Church,  where  all  things  should  be 
most  settled,  would  be  in  confusion.  "These  noble  and  virtuous  princes," 
he  said,  "out  of  the  singular  love  and  affection  they  bear  to  the  public, 
and  particularly  also  for  your  own  welfare,  have  thought  it  fit  to  ad- 
monish you  of  these  things;  for,  without  doubt,  if  you  obstinately  persist 
in  your  opinions  and  yield  nothing,  the  Emperor  will  banish  you,  and  not 
suffer  you  to  have  any  footing  within  the  bounds  of  Germany.  So  it 
concerns  yourself  seriously  to  reflect  on  the  situation." 

The  case  as  thus  stated  was  well  worthy  of  serious  consideration.  It 
could  not  be  denied  that  Luther's  teachings  looked  toward  revolution, 
which  could  not  be  accomplished  without  great  trouble,  how  great  no 
one  could  foresee.  A  dismemberment  of  the  Church,  an  unsettling  of 
religious,  social  and  political  relations,  was  a  part  of  what  was  threat- 
ened. Nothing  but  the  most  imperative  necessity — the  defense  or  the 
assertion  of  the  highest  and  most  vital  human  rights — could  justify 
persistence  hi  a  course  that  seemed  to  lead  to  such  a  result.  The  de- 
struction of  property,  the  weakening  of  confidence,  the  breaking  down 
of  moral  barriers  and  the  loosing  of  the  worst  of  human  passions,  are 
not  things  that  sober  men  can  look  forward  to  without  a  sense  of  dismay. 
And  these  are  the  things  that  many,  among  them  some  of  Luther's 
friends,  saw  before  them  as  the  consequences  of  the  conflict  that  he  was 
bringing  on.  Was  what  he  was  seeking  worth  what  it  was  likely  to  cost? 
There  are  human  rights  that  we  might  consider  cheap  if  they  cost  no 
more  than  the  wretchedness  of  two  or  three  generations  of  men;  but  we 
ought  to  be  well  convinced  of  their  supreme  value  before  we  deliberately 
consent  to  pay  such  a  price  for  them.  , 

After  a  great  revolution  we  forget  the  cost  of  it.  Before  such  a  revo- 
lution, the  thoughtless,  the  fanatical  and  those  possessed  of  the  lofty 
spirit  of  devotion,  make  no  account  of  it.  But  in  estimating  the  conduct 
of  men  and  of  parties  we  must  not  neglect  to  consider  the  price  that  is  paid, 
as  well  as  the  good  that  is  gained.  We  are  too  prone  to  feel  that  those 
who  opposed  any  movement  that  has  resulted  in  good  were  influenced 
by  selfish  motives  or  unwise  considerations.  This  may  often  be  true, 
but  we  should  feel  a  stirring  of  kindness  toward  those  men  who,  like 
the  Archbishop  of  Trier,  pleaded  with  Luther  to  moderate  his  claims 
and  give  peace  to  Church  and  Empire.  And  he  felt  kindly  toward  them. 
"Most  noble  princes,"  he  replied,  "I  give  you  hearty  thanks.  For  so 
illustrious  persons  to  vouchsafe  to  take  this  pains  and  trouble  for  so 
mean  a  man  as  I,  is  an  act  of  extraordinary  condescension."  These  are 
not  ironical  words,  but  simply  true;  it  was  an  act  of  extraordinary  con- 
descension. He  went  on  and  disclaimed  the  notion  that  he  despised 


162  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

all  councils;  he  acknowledged  that  his  teachings  might  lead  astray  and 
cause  disturbances,  but  he  did  not  shrink  from  such  consequences.  "I 
will  suffer  anything,"  he  said,  "yea,  sooner  lose  my  life,  than  forsake  the 
clear  rule  of  the  word  of  God;  for  we  must  obey  God  rather  than  men. 
As  to  the  scandal  that  is  objected  to  me,  I  neither  can  nor  ought  to  be 
accountable  for  it,  for  there  is  a  great  difference  between  the  scandals 
of  charity  and  those  of  faith:  the  first  consisting  in  life  and  manners, 
which  by  all  means  are  to  be  avoided;  whilst  the  others,  arising  from 
the  word  of  God,  are  not  at  all  to  be  regarded;  for  truth  and  the  will 
of  our  Heavenly  Father  ought  not  to  be  dissembled,  though  the  whole 
world  should  be  offended  thereat."  He  was  not  a  favorer  of  disorder. 
He  taught  that  men  must  honor  and  obey  the  laws  and  the  magistrates; 
he  had  always  so  taught,  as  could  be  seen  from  his  writings.  But  as  to 
ecclesiastical  laws,  the  case  was  different:  they  came  into  conflict  with 
the  teachings  of  the  word  of  God,  and  laid  "the  hard  and  intolerable 
yoke  of  human  laws  upon  the  minds  and  consciences  of  men."  He 
knew  that  the  Scriptures  forbid  our  trusting  our  own  judgment,  and  he 
would  not  be  obstinate  about  anything,  provided  he  might  have  leave 
to  profess  the  doctrine  of  the  Gospel. 

He  was  exhorted  to  submit  his  books  to  the  sentence  of  the  Emperor 
and  his  princes.  His  answer  was  that  he  would  not  decline  the  judgment 
of  the  Emperor  and  the  estates  of  the  Empire,  provided  they  took  for 
their  guide  the  word  of  God;  but  said  he,  "unless  I  am  thereby  con- 
victed of  error,  I  cannot  change  my  opinion."  He  begged  that  the  princes 
would  intercede  with  the  Emperor,  that  he  might  be  suffered  to  live 
with  a  good  conscience.  If  he  could  but  obtain  that,  he  would  be  ready 
to  do  anything.  The  Elector  of  Brandenburg  said  to  him,  "Is  it  your 
meaning,  then,  that  you  will  not  submit  unless  you  be  convinced  by  the 
Holy  Scriptures?"  Luther  replied,  "It  is,  sir — or  else  by  most  evident 
reasons."  *  j 

With  this  the  conference  ended.  It  had  served  to  develop  and  em- 
phasize Luther's  position.  He  recognized  the  evils  that  might  follow  his 
teaching,  but  he  could  do  only  what  he  was  doing.  The  question  had 
narrowed  itself  down  to  this:  whether  men  should  submit  to  the  judgment 
of  Popes  and  councils  as  an  infallible  standard  of  truth,  or  to  the  word  of 
God  interpreted  by  every  man  for  himself.  Or,  to  state  the  case  some- 
what more  explicitly,  Luther's  contention  involved  two  things:  first, 
that  the  word  of  God  is  the  sole  standard  of  Christian  truth ;  and  second, 

1  In  the  second  trial,  before  those  who  were  friendly  to  him,  it  was  doubtless 
harder  for  Luther  to  keep  faith  than  in  the  Diet,  where  the  consequences  of  what 
he  was  doing  were  not  brought  so  strongly  home  to  him.  But  having  a  second 
time  resisted  all  incitements  to  recant,  he  had  done  all  there  was  for  him  to  do  at 
Worms,  and  there  was  no  occasion  for  his  staying  longer. 


THE  DIET  OF  WORMS  163 

that  every  age  must  be  free  to  understand  it  for  itself.  Thus  having 
begun  with  a  question  as  to  the  value  of  papal  indulgences,  he  had  gone 
on;  unimportant  or  nonessential  things  had  been  left  behind;  and  at  last 
he  had  reached  the  one  fundamental  thing  that  separated  the  two  par- 
ties. It  was  a  question  of  authority:  on  the  one  side  Pope  and  council, 
on  the  other  the  word  of  God. 

The  Archbishop  of  Trier  had  treated  Luther  with  great  kindness. 
He  was  a  Romanist,  but  he  was  also  a  man  of  learning  and  candor  and 
experience,  and  friendly  to  Luther.  He  was  reluctant  to  abandon  all 
hope  of  bringing  about  a  reconciliation;  he  wished  Luther  to  agree  to 
submit  to  a  general  council.  Luther  professed  himself  willing,  provided 
the  controversy  should  be  managed  according  to  the  rule  of  Holy  Scrip- 
ture. Failing  to  drive  him  from  this  position,  the  Archbishop  asked 
him  how  he  thought  the  evils  threatening  could  be  avoided.  He  an- 
swered that  it  might  be  done  by  following  the  plan  of  Gamaliel,  and 
leaving  the  whole  matter  to  settle  itself.  This  could  not  be,  and  further 
efforts  were  useless.  Luther  was  weary  and  impatient  of  them.  He 
said  to  the  Archbishop:  "Most  gracious  Lord,  I  cannot  yield.  It  must 
happen  to  me  as  God  wills.  I  beg  your  grace  to  obtain  for  me  the  gracious 
permission,  of  his  imperial  Majesty  that  I  may  go  home  again,  for  I 
have  now  been  here  ten  days,  and  nothing  has  been  accomplished." 
This  was  said  the  25th  of  April.  But  Luther  was  wrong:  a  great  deal 
had  been  accomplished,  the  results  of  which  were  to  appear  in  later  years. 

There  was  a  way  to  settle  the  whole  matter;  or,  at  least,  some  thought 
there  was  a  way,  which  was  not  tried.  Luther,  one  obstinate,  con- 
demned heretic,  was  involving  the  whole  Empire  in  controversy,  trouble 
and  danger;  why  not  put  him  out  of  the  way?  If  the  Emperor  would 
only  break  his  plighted  troth  all  would  be  well.  It  was  one  of  those 
times  in  which  Satan  seems  to  have  the  right  and  the  power  to  bestow 
kingdoms.  Before  the  Diet  it  was  Luther  who  was  on  trial,  now  it  was 
the  young  Emperor.  It  is  well  for  him  and  well  for  mankind  that  he  did 
not  fail.  He  decided  that  it  was  better  to  keep  faith  than  to  have  peace.1 
Charles  was  young,  and  inexperienced  in  the  art  of  ruling  men,  and  he 
therefore  naturally  and  wisely  deferred  much  to  the  judgment  of  his  coun- 
sellors at  Worms.  But  in  this  matter  he  took  counsel  solely  of  his  own 
conscience  and  sense  of  honor.  His  healthy  young  instinct  was  wiser 
than  the  subtle  advice  of  Aleander. 

1  "Some  of  the  assembly,  approving  what  was  done  at  Constance,  said  that 
faith  ought  not  to  be  kept.  But  Lewis,  count-elector  Palatine,  opposed  himself, 
as  unto  a  thing  that  would  brand  the  German  name  with  a  mark  of  perpetual 
ignominy,  expressing  with  disdain  that  it  was  intolerable  that  for  the  service  of 
priests  Germany  should  draw  upon  itself  the  infamy  of  not  keeping  the  public 
faith."  Sarpi,  bk.  i,  p.  13. 


164  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

There  was  no  reason  why  Luther  should  continue  longer  at  Worms. 
The  Emperor  gave  him  a  safe-conduct,  allowing  him  twenty-one  days 
in  which  to  reach  home,  and  dismissed  him.  He  was  not  to  teach,  either 
by  word  or  writing,  on  the  way.  It  was  April  26th  when  he  passed  out 
of  the  gate  and  onward.  As  he  had  refused  to  retract  or  to  submit  him- 
self unconditionally  to  the  judgment  of  any  tribunal,  the  Emperor  must 
issue  a  decree  against  him.  This  was  done  on  the  26th  of  May,  just 
one  month  after  Luther's  departure.1 

Luther,  the  Pope,  the  Emperor  and  the  Diet  had  now  all  done  their 
part.  The  imperial  ban  had  been  pronounced.  But  who  was  to  execute 
it,  or  was  it  to  be  executed  at  all?  The  question  as  to  Luther  had  first 
been  referred  to  a  papal  legate,  then  to  the  Pope,  then  to  the  Emperor, 
then  to  the  Diet  at  Worms.  The  effect  of  the  imperial  edict  was  to 
refer  it  to  the  German  people.  Luther's  private  cause  had  become 
national,  European. 

The  first  act  of  the  Lutheran  tragedy  was  ended. 

1  Despatch  of  Aleander  of  that  date,  Brieger,  p.  224.  For  the  full  text  of  the 
Worms  decree,  see  Appendix  IV. 


PART  II 

FROM  THE  EDICT  OF  WORMS  TO  THE  PROTEST  AT 
SPEYER  1521-1529 


CHAPTER  I 

THE  NEW  LUTHER 

BEFORE  Luther  left  Worms,  the  Elector  Frederick  had  caused  it  to 
be  intimated  to  him  that  means  would  be  devised  of  giving  him  further 
protection,1  but  beyond  that  he  seems  to  have  been  unapprised.  The 
fewer  to  whom  the  secret  was  confided,  the  better  it  would  obviously 
be  for  all  concerned,  and  Luther  was  not  a  silent  or  discreet  man,  as  the 
Elector  well  knew.  Frederick,  whom  Aleander  in  his  correspondence 
calls  "the  fox  of  Germany,"  was  what  the  Scotch  term  a  "canny"  man. 
He  could  not  openly  defy  the  imperial  edict  by  continuing  his  former  pro- 
tection of  Luther,  yet  he  was  more  than  ever  determined  that  the  Witten- 
berg doctor,  who  had  greatly  pleased  him  by  his  conduct  at  Worms, 
should  not  suffer  harm.  He  contrived  a  plan  as  simple  as  it  was  effective: 
Luther  should  disappear  for  a  time;  his  whereabouts  should  not  be 
known  even  to  his  most  intimate  friends;  he  should  even  be  supposed 
to  be  dead;  and  after  a  while  the  storm  might  blow  over. 

On  leaving  Worms,  Luther  took  the  way  to  Eisenach,  and  after  going 
some  distance  he  dismissed  the  imperial  herald.  At  several  places  he 
preached,  which  can  hardly  be  called  an  honorable  observance  on  his 
part  of  the  terms  of  his  safe-conduct,  though  his  excuse  was  that  he  had 
never  been  party  to  an  agreement  that  the  word  of  God  should  be  bound. 
Still,  he  had  accepted,  and"  had  been  glad  to  accept,  from  the  Emperor 
a  safe-conduct,  the  terms  of  which  were  that  he  should  not  teach  by  word 
or  pen  on  his  way  home,  and  he  kept  his  part  of  the  contract  less  faith- 
fully than  Charles  had  kept  his.  Moving  along  leisurely,  attended  now 
by  only  two  friends,  toward  nightfall  of  the  4th  of  May,  as  he  was  in 
a  lonely  part  of  the  wood  near  Altenstein,  a  band  of  armed  horsemen 
suddenly  appeared  and  surrounded  the  carriage.  Even  his  friends  were 
deceived,  and  supposed  themselves  attacked  by  bandits;  one  of  them  fled 
for  his  life,  the  other,  Amsdorf ,  went  on  to  Wittenberg  with  the  news 
that  Luther  was  violently  dragged  away  by  these  robbers  and  his  fate 

1  Seckendorf,  p.  159.  This  is  amply  confirmed  by  the  letter  that  Luther  wrote 
to  Cranach  from  Frankfurt,  April  28th:  "I  shall  submit  to  being  hidden  away, 
and  as  yet  do  not  know  where.  I  would  have  preferred  being  put  to  death  by 
the  tyrants,  especially  by  the  furious  Duke  George,  but  was  obliged  to  follow 
the  advice  of  friends  and  wait  my  time."  De  Wette,  1:  588;  Currie,  68.  Cf.  the 
letter  to  Melanchthon  of  May  12th,  De  Wette,  2:  1;  Currie,  71. 

167 


168  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

was  unknown.1  As  the  days  and  weeks  passed  and  nothing  was  heard 
of  him,  the  people  were  filled  with  anxiety.  Even  his  enemies  rejoiced 
with  trembling  when  they  heard  of  this  event,  for  things  had  come  to 
such  a  pass  that  Luther  dead  might  well  be  more  troublesome  to  them  than 
Luther  living.  "You  have,"  says  Alphonsus  Valdesius,  writing  to  Peter 
Martyr,  "as  some  wish,  the  end;  as  I  believe,  not  the  end,  but  the  be- 
ginning, of  this  tragedy.  For  I  see  that  the  minds  of  the  Germans  are 
much  stirred  up  against  the  Roman  See.  Nor  do  I  see  that  the  imperial 
edict  will  have  much  weight  with  them,  for  after  its  publication  Luther's 
books  were  everywhere  sold — in  villages  and  in  open  places — with  im- 
punity. Hence  you  may  easily  conjecture  what  will  be  done  when  the 
Emperor  leaves  Germany."  2  A  little  later,  June  26th,  Erasmus  writes, 
"The  Lutheran  tragedy  has  been  acted  among  us:  would  that  it  had  never 
been  brought  on  the  stage."  3  Albert  Diirer,  Germany's  greatest  artist, 
then  at  Niirnberg,  passionately  bewailed  in  his  journal  the  condition  of 
the  Church:  "0  God,  is  Luther  dead?  Who  will  hereafter  deliver  to  us 
the  Gospel  so  clearly?  O  God,  how  much  would  he  have  been  able  to 
write  for  us  in  ten  or  twenty  years!  0  all  ye  pious  Christian  men,  help 
me  to  bewail  this  man  inspired  by  God."  4  His  enemies  began  to  be 
alarmed,  and  one  of  them  wrote,  "We  can  scarcely  save  our  lives,  unless 
we  light  a  candle,  and  seek  for  him  until  we  find  him." 

Luther  has  left  no  record  of  his  sensations  when  the  "  bandits,"  with 
so  well  simulated  violence,  dragged  him  from  his  wagon,  mounted  him 
on  a  horse  and  spirited  him  away.  If  he  for  the  moment  supposed  him- 
self to  be  a  real  captive,  he  was  soon  undeceived.  But  eight  miles  distant 
was  the  castle  of  Wartburg,  formerly  a  residence  of  the  ducal  family 
of  Saxony  and  still  one  of  their  possessions.  Thither  Luther  was  taken 
in  the  darkness  and  silence  of  the  night,  and  there  he  spent  the  next  ten 
months  in  retirement  and  incognito.  He  doffed  his  monk's  gown 6  and 
assumed  the  garb  of  a  country  gentleman;  he  let  his  beard  grow;  he  was 
known  as  Junker  George. 

Luther  could  never  be  idle,  and  accordingly  at  the  Wartburg  he  gave 
himself  to  the  study  of  the  Scriptures,6  to  numerous  literary  labors 

1  Spalatin  tells  the  story  of  Luther's  "capture"  and  taking  to  the  Wartburgr 
Annales,  50,  51.  Luther  himself  gives  a  briefer  account,  in  his  letter  to  GerbeU 
November  1st,  De  Wette,  2:  89,  Currie,  86. 

*  Gieseler,  4:  58.     Habes  hujus  tragoediae  ut  quidam  volunt  finem,  etc. 
» Lutheri  Tragoedia  peracta  est  apud  nos,  etc.    Erasmus,  Op.  Ill :  650. 

«  For  this  remarkable  passage  of  Diirer's  journal  in  full,  see  Moore's  "Albert 
Diirer,"  in  "The  Library  of  Art,"  London,  1905,  p.  157  seq. 

*  De  Wette,  2:7.     On  his  return  to  Wittenberg  he  resumed  his  monk's  garb 
and  did  not  finally  lay  it  aside  until  October  9,  1524.    But  at  the  Wartburg  he 
assumed  the  character  of  Junker  so  completely  that  he  even  went  hunting  with  the 
Duke's  retainers  at  the  castle.    Letter  to  Spalatin,  August  15th,  De  Wette,  2:  41, 
Currie,  82. 

8  To  Spalatin:  Ego  otiosus  hie  et  crapulosus  sedeo  tola  die:  Biblem  Graecam  et 
Hebraeam  lego.  De  Wette,  2:  6. 


THE  NEW  LUTHER  169 

and  to  meditation.  He  also  carried  on  an  active  correspondence  with 
his  friends,  who  were  promptly  taken  into  his  confidence,  so  far  as  to 
be  informed  of  his  safety,  though  the  place  of  his  residence  was  concealed 
from  them.  To  Spalatin,  who  of  course  was  in  the  secret,  he  writes 
from  "Patmos,"  while  to  Melanchthon  he  dates  his  letters  "from  the 
region  of  the  birds"  and  "from  the  wilderness."  These  letters  inform 
us  quite  fully  of  his  occupations.  He  wrote  an  exposition  of  the  Psalms, 
working  at  this  at  intervals  until  November,  when  he  sent  an  exposition 
of  the  thirty-seventh  Psalm  to  the  Wittenbergers,  with  a  long  letter.1 
During  the  same  time  he  composed  his  treatise  on  monastic  vows,  which  he 
sent  to  his  father,  with  the  letter  already  quoted,  November  21st;  and  a 
tract  of  considerable  length  on  the  "Misuse  of  the  Mass."2  These 
labors  were  interrupted  by  periods  of  physical  and  spiritual  depression. 
Luther  had  been  accustomed  to  simple  food  and  an  active  life;  at  the 
castle  he  changed  to  a  sedentary  life  and  richer  food,  with  the  very  natural 
result  of  dyspepsia  and  gloom.  He  writes  to  Melanchthon:  "It  is  now 
eight  days  that  I  neither  write  anything,  nor  pray,  nor  study,  partly 
by  reason  of  temptations  of  the  flesh,  partly  because  vexed  by  other 
cares."  3  Throughout  life  he  was  accustomed  to  refer  whatever  displeased 
or  vexed  him  or  seemed  to  hinder  his  work  to  the  direct  agency  of  the 
devil,  in  whom  he  believed  with  rather  more  energy  than  he  believed 
in  God.  So  now,  instead  of  blaming  his  mode  of  life  and  changing  it, 
he  ascribes  all  his  troubles  to  Satan.  He  even  seems  to  have  imagined 
that  he  had  personal  interviews  with  the  devil,  though  the  story  of  the 
inkstand  and  other  similar  tales  are  due  to  the  vivid  imaginings 
of  his  later  admirers,  rather  than  to  anything  that  he  has  left  on 
record. 

But  the  chief  labor  of  this  residence  at  the  Wartburg,  and  one  of  the 
things  of  prime  importance  in  the  history  of  the  Reformation,  was  the 
beginning  of  his  version  of  the  Scriptures  in  German.  So  many  reckless 
and  unfounded  assertions  have  been  made  about  this,  by  both  friends 
and  foes,  that  it  is  important  to  ascertain  the  facts  accurately.  As  we 
have  already  seen,  Luther  was  fully  occupied  with  other  literary  tasks 
from  a  few  weeks  after  his  arrival  there  until  late  in  November.  In  a 
letter  to  his  friend  Lange,  dated  December  18th,  he  announces  his  inten- 
tion to  translate  the  New  Testament  into  German,  in  terms  neces- 
sitating the  inference  that  the  work  had  not  yet  been  begun.  On  March 
30,  1522,  he  writes  Spalatin  that  he  has  translated  the  entire  New  Tes- 
tament in  his  Patmos,  and  that  he  and  Melanchthon  are  now  revising 

i  De  Wette,  2:  69. 

» LOL,  6:  234  seq.;  LDS,  28:  28  seq.;  Walch,  19,  1068  *eq. 

*  De  Wette,  2:  22. 


170  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

what  he  hopes  will  prove  a  worthy  work.1  This  leaves  little  more  than 
ten  weeks  for  the  completion  of  the  work,  for  he  brought  a  rough  draft 
with  him  to  Wittenberg  for  the  criticism  of  Melanchthon.  After  re- 
ceiving a  hasty  revision,  this  portion  of  the  version  was  hurried  through 
the  press  and  published  September  22,  1522.  This  would  be  a  rapid 
piece  of  book-making,  for  both  author  and  publisher,  even  in  these  days 
of  advanced  learning,  plentiful  apparatus  of  scholarship  and  unlimited 
mechanical  facilities.  Considering  the  conditions  of  Luther's  day,  the 
whole  affair  borders  on  the  miraculous. 

It  would  be  difficult  in  any  case  to  believe  that  a  complete  translation 
of  the  entire  New  Testament  could  have  been  made  by  a  man  of  Luther's 
limited  attainments  in  Greek,  and  with  the  imperfect  apparatus  that  he 
possessed,  in  the  short  space  of  ten  weeks.  And,  as  we  shall  see,  another 
task  occupied  a  part  of  his  attention  and  time  during  these  very  weeks. 
Any  minister  to-day,  who  has  had  the  Greek  course  of  a  college  and 
seminary,  is  a  far  better  scholar  than  Luther.  Let  such  a  man,  if  he 
thinks  Luther's  achievement  possible,  attempt  the  accurate  translation 
of  a  single  chapter  of  the  New  Testament — such  a  translation  as  he 
would  be  willing  to  print  under  his  own  name — and  multiply  the  time 
consumed  by  the  two  hundred  and  sixty  chapters.  He  will  speedily 
be  convinced  that  the  feat  attributed  to  Luther  is  an  impossible  one. 
What  then?  Is  the  whole  story  false?  That,  too,  is  impossible — the  main 
facts  are  too  well  attested.  The  solution  of  an  apparently  insoluble 
contradiction  is  a  very  simple  one:  Luther  did  not  make  an  independent 
translation;  he  never  claimed  that  he  did;  none  of  his  contemporaries 
made  the  claim  for  him.  It  is  only  later  admirers  who  have  made 
this  statement  to  enhance  his  glory,  just  as  they  have  unduly  exaggerated 
the  paucity  of  the  Scriptures  and  the  popular  ignorance  of  them  before 
Luther's  day,  for  the  same  purpose.  We  now  know  that  both  these 
assertions  are  untrue  to  historic  fact,  and  have  misled  many  unwary 
persons  into  inferences  far  indeed  from  the  truth.  The  two  assertions 
are  so  intimately  connected,  that  in  showing  either  to  be  unfounded  the 
other  is  also  and  necessarily  controverted. 

Authorities  differ  concerning  the  number  of  editions  of  the  Bible  in 
German  before  Luther's  version  appeared,  but  none  enumerate  fewer  than 
fourteen  in  High  German  and  three  in  Low  German.  Those  in  High  Ger- 
man, which  are  all  that  we  need  consider  here,  are  apparently  reprints 
of  a  single  MS.  version,  of  which  two  copies  are  still  preserved,  one  in 

1  De  Wette,  2:  115,  123,  176.  In  his  letter  to  Spalatin  he  asks  his  friend,  as 
one  who  at  court  sees  such  things,  for  the  German  names  of  the  precious  stones, 
and  their  colors,  as  given  in  Rev.  21.  In  a  letter *of  May  19th  he  acknowledges 
receipt  of  the  information,  and  sends  Spalatin  a  proof  of  the  first  "signature" 
of  the  forthcoming  New  Testament. 


THE  NEW  LUTHER  171 

a  monastery  at  Tepl,  Bohemia,  the  other  in  the  library  of  the  university  at 
Freiburg  in  the  Breisgau.  The  former,  known  as  the  Codex  Teplensisr 
has  recently  been  printed  and  is  accessible  to  all  scholars.  As  this  MS. 
contains  seven  articles  of  faith  that  are  evidently  Waldensian,  many 
have  been  led  to  attribute  to  this  version  a  Waldensian  origin.  Others- 
have  pointed  out  that  no  more  is  proved  by  the  MS.  than  a  Waldensian 
ownership  of  it  at  some  time,  and  have  asserted  a  Catholic  origin  for 
the  version.  We  need  not  enter  into  this  controversy,  which  concerns 
a  question  of  technical  scholarship  rather  than  the  historic  effect  of  the 
version;  for,  whatever  theory  of  its  origin  may  prevail,  the  fact  of  ita 
frequent  reprinting  and  wide  circulation  cannot  be  hi  any  wise  affected. 

This  version  was  certainly  in  the  possession  of  Luther,  and  was  as 
certainly  used  by  him  in  the  preparation  of  his  version.  This  fact, 
once  entirely  unsuspected,  and  then  hotly  denied,  has  been  proved  to 
a  demonstration  by  the  "deadly  parallel."  It  appears  from  a  verse-by- 
verse  comparison  that  this  old  German  Bible  was  in  fact  so  industriously 
used  by  Luther,  that  the  only  accurate  description  of  Luther's  version 
is  to  call  it  a  careful  revision  of  the  older  text.  Just  as  the  English  Bible 
is  the  result  of  successive  revisions,  from  the  days  of  Wiclif  to  our  own, 
so  that  our  text  has  a  demonstrable  historic  continuity,  so  the  German 
Bible  is  the  product  of  revision.  This  is  not  to  detract  hi  the  least  from 
the  glory  of  Luther  or  to  diminish  the  value  of  his  version — it  is  merely 
to  define  with  accuracy  what  he  accomplished,  and  to  distinguish  his 
real  achievement  from  the  semi-legendary  tales  of  Lutheran  literature.1 

For  the  doing  of  this  work,  Luther  had  marked  qualifications  and 
advantages.  In  the  first  place,  he  had  a  better  text  than  had  been  avail- 
able to  former  translators.  The  old  German  Bible  had  been  translated 
from  the  Vulgate,  and  had  followed  it  slavishly;  Luther  proposed  to 
use  the  original  Greek  and  Hebrew  Scriptures  as  the  basis  of  his  work. 
For  the  New  Testament  he  had  the  second  Basel  edition  (1519)  of  Eras- 
mus, hi  which  many  of  the  misprints  of  the  first  edition  had  been  cor- 
rected. He  did  not  fail  to  consult  the  Vulgate,  and  sometimes  followed 
that  version,  which  in  some  passages  was  made  from  an  older  text  than 
that  of  Erasmus.  He  had,  in  addition  to  a  better  text,  a  complete  knowl- 
edge of  his  mother  tongue  and  a  facility  in  its  use  that  no  man  of  his 
generation  could  match.  Among  the  many  dialectical  forms  of  German 
in  his  day,  there  was  no  recognized  standard;  there  was,  hi  fact,  no  German 
language.  He  chose  as  the  foundation  of  his  work  the  Saxon  dialect, 
as  the  familiar  speech  of  hi?  childhood  and  the  language  of  the  Elector's 

1  Krafft,  Die  deutsche  Bfod  vor  Luther,  Bonn,  1883.  Cf .  Haupt,  Die  deutsche  Bibel- 
ubersetzung  der  mitelalterichen  Waldenser,  Wiirzberg,  1885.  Specimens  of  the  two 
versions  are  given  by  Schaff,  6:  351  seq.  See  also  Keller,  Die  Waldenser  und  die 
deutschen  Bibelubersetzungen,  Leipzig,  1886. 


172  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

court;  this  he  enriched  with  the  best  words  of  other  dialects,  until  he  had 
a  vocabulary  that  for  fulness  and  flexibility  left  little  to  be  desired. 
He  had  probably  never  seen  or  even  heard  of  Dante's  De  Vulgari  Elo- 
quentia,  but  he  unconsciously  pursued  the  method  there  recommended,  and 
practiced  by  the  poet  in  the  writing  of  the  "Divine  Comedy."  The 
effect  was  similar  in  both  cases:  the  resulting  work  was  authoritative  in 
fixing  the  literary  standard  of  the  language  in  which  it  was  written. 
Luther's  version  became  a  German  classic — it  became  the  German  classic — 
and  was  accepted  as  the  type  of  literary  German  for  subsequent  gen- 
erations. Not  that  the  German  language  became  stereotyped  and  in- 
capable of  progress,  but  the  reading  of  this  book  by  the  whole  nation 
had  a  formative  and  permanent  influence  on  the  language  that  no  other 
book  has  ever  approached.  Such  is  the  verdict  of  German  scholars  of 
the  highest  rank  as  authorities  in  literature  and  philology.  Competent 
German  critics  declare  that  Luther's  Bible  exhibits  the  whole  wealth, 
force  and  beauty  of  the  German  language,  and  it  is  still  deservedly 
reckoned  as  the  first  classic  of  German  literature.  It  is  at  once  faithful 
to  the  original,1  yet  so  free  and  idiomatic  as  to  be  virtually  an  original 
work. 

But  beyond  this  literary  gift,  Luther  had  another  qualification  in 
which  he  was  unsurpassed — no  man  of  his  age  had  penetrated  more  deeply 
into  the  real  spirit  of  the  Bible.  A  good  translation  requires  not  only 
a  scholar  and  a  master  of  words,  but  as  he  himself  said,  a  "truly  devout, 
faithful,  diligent,  Christian,  learned,  experienced  and  practiced  heart." 
It  is  only  to  one  who  approaches  the  Scriptures  with  such  a  heart  that 
they  yield  their  inmost  meaning;  and  no  man  who  has  not  the  aid  of  the 
indwelling  Spirit  of  God  can  make  an  adequate  version  of  the  Scriptures, 
however  great  his  acquirements  as  a  scholar.  With  all  his  faults  and 
imperfections,  and  they  were  many  and  serious,  Luther  had  "the  vision 
and  the  faculty  divine"  beyond  most  men  of  his  time. 

He  had  no  false  pride,  moreover,  about  himself  and  willingly  recog- 
nized the  superiority  of  certain  of  his  friends  in  some  things.  He  always 
bowed  to  the  greater  learning  of  Melanchthon,  and  gladly  submitted 
his  MS.  to  Philip's  critical  revision,  before  sending  it  to  the  printer. 
He  consulted  other  friends  and  received  help  from  them;  Sturtz,  at  Erfurt, 
gave  him  information  about  the  Scripture  coins  and  measures  and  their 
German  equivalents;  while  Spalatin,  from  the  jewels  in  the  Elector's 
treasury,  was  able  to  furnish  a  correct  list  of  names  for  the  precious 
stones  of  the  New  Jerusalem. 

1  While  this  is  true  in  the  main,  occasional  characteristic  exceptions  are  to  be 
noted.  Luther's  methods  of  handling  Scripture  are  illustrated  by  his  insistence 
upon  inserting  allein  in  Rom.  3:  28,  in  spite  of  its  absence  from  the  original,  and 
against  the  earnest  remonstrances  of  Melanchthon. 


THE  NEW  LUTHER  173 

It  was,  however,  when  he  began  work  on  the  Old  Testament  that  he 
found  outside  help  of  the  greatest  value,  in  fact,  quite  indispensable. 
Luther  knew  rather  less  of  Hebrew  than  of  Greek,  and  soon  found  him- 
self quite  out  of  his  depth  in  Job  and  the  prophets.  He  organized  a 
Bible  Club  (Collegium  Biblicum)  of  which  Bugenhagen,  Cruciger  and 
Justin  Jonas  were  the  principal  members,  after  himself  and  Melanch- 
thon.  They  met  once  a  week  and  together  compared  and  revised  their 
text.  Sometimes  they  progressed  at  the  rate  of  barely  a  line  of  text 
to  a  session,  so  exhaustively  they  did  their  work.  Luther  reserved  to 
himself  the  final  revision,  in  order  to  make  sure  that  the  version  should 
be  in  one  style  of  idiomatic  German  throughout,  or,  as  he  said,  that  he 
might  "make  the  prophets  speak  German"  (reden  Deutsch).  He  took 
endless  pains  to  make  his  Bible  "understanded  of  the  people,"  by  using  the 
words  that  they  used  in  the  home,  the  shops,  on  the  street.  As  an  ex- 
ample of  the  pains  he  took,  it  is  recorded  that  while  translating  the 
book  of  Leviticus  he  went  to  the  butchers'  shops  and  got  the  names 
used  by  the  trade  for  every  part  of  the  carcass  of  a  sheep,  in  order  that 
all  the  terminology  of  the  Jewish  sacrifices  might  be  accurately  and 
intelligibly  rendered. 

We  are  anticipating  the  course  of  events,  but  it  will  be  well  to  record 
just  here  the  remaining  facts  about  this  version.  The  Old  Testament 
version  was  completed  and  the  entire  Bible  was  published  in  1534,  and 
five  other  editions  were  prepared  under  Luther's  supervision  before  his 
death.  The  last  of  these,  appearing  in  1545,  is  regarded  as  the  final 
text.  In  consequence  of  the  numerous  unauthorized  reprints,  many 
errors  crept  into  the  text,  and  in  process  of  time  some  intentional  changes 
were  made,  so  that  a  critical  recension  finally  became  necessary.  This 
was  accomplished  about  1700  by  the  Canstein  Bible  Institute,  and 
that  edition  became  the  textus  receptus  of  the  German  Bible,  until  its 
recent  revision  by  a  committee  of  distinguished  German  scholars.  This 
revision  is  now  published  at  the  Francke  Orphanage,  Halle,  and  is  rap- 
idly superseding  the  original  Luther  Bible;  but  the  German  Bible  will 
always  remain,  as  to  its  substance,  Luther's. 

Concerning  the  circulation  of  this  version,  definite  facts  are  hard  to 
obtain,  because  no  statistics  were  kept  or  gathered.  The  number  of  re- 
prints was  almost  innumerable,  and  none  but  the  printers  knew  the 
number  of  volumes  sold.  The  authorized  printer  at  Wittenberg  sold  in 
forty  years  (1534-1574)  a  hundred  thousand  copies.  After  the  utmost 
allowance  is  made  for  the  circulation  of  the  Bible  in  Germany  before 
Luther,  it  is  certain  that  he  was  the  means  of  increasing  its  readers 
tenfold.  The  Bible  was  so  cheapened  and  multiplied  by  his  efforts 
that  every  German  family  might  have  a  copy  if  it  would.  The  Roman 


174  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

Church  was  forced  to  emulate  Luther,  and  versions  made  by  its  scholars 
were  also  issued,  but  they  were  not  able  to  displace  his  work,  which  has 
survived  with  influence  unimpaired  to  our  day,  while  all  its  rivals  went 
long  since  into  complete  oblivion.  As  to  its  effect  on  contemporaries, 
there  can  be  no  better  evidence  than  the  reluctant  testimony  of  a  Catholic 
opponent,  Cochlseus:  "Luther's  New  Testament  was  so  much  multi- 
plied and  spread  by  printers  that  even  tailors  and  shoemakers,  yea, 
even  women  and  ignorant  persons  who  had  accepted  this  new  Lutheran 
gospel  and  could  read  a  little  German,  studied  it  with  the  greatest  avidity, 
as  the  foundation  of  all  truth.  Some  committed  it  to  memory  and  carried 
it  about  in  their  bosom.  In  a  few  months,  such  people  deemed  themselves 
so  learned  that  they  were  not  ashamed  to  dispute  about  faith  and  the 
gospel,  not  only  with  Catholic  laymen,  but  with  priests  and  monks  and 
doctors  of  divinity."  x  Luther  had  actually  brought  about  that  state 
of  things  in  Germany  which  Tyndale  vainly  aspired  to  produce  in  Eng- 
land. "If  God  spares  my  life,"  said  the  English  translator  to  an  ignorant 
priest,  "ere  many  years  I  will  cause  the  boy  who  driveth  the  plow  to 
know  more  of  the  Scriptures  than  you  do." 

After  a  while  the  whole  Bible  was  as  free  and  open  to  the  humblest 
child  as  to  the  clergy.  In  the  long  cycle,  circumstances  opened  it,  as 
circumstances  had  closed  it.  So  long  as  the  Church  worked  among  old 
populations,  Greek  and  Latin,  in  the  Roman  Empire,  there  were  many 
outside  the  clergy  who  could  read,  and  Chrysostom  and  others  did  no 
idle  thing  when  they  urged  the  people  to  study  the  Scriptures  for  them- 
selves. But  when  the  new  peoples  came  in,  and  churches  were  gathered 
among  the  barbarous  tribes,  among  whom  reading  was  an  unknown  art, 
the  reading  of  the  Bible  was  confined  to  the  clergy  alone.  In  time  the 
feeling  grew  that  what  the  clergy  alone  did,  the  clergy  alone  had  a  right 
to  do.  And  so,  the  Bible,  which  had  at  first  been  closed  to  the  people 
by  circumstances  came  to  be  closed  to  them  by  law.2  With  the  more 
general  diffusion  of  light,  and  especially  with  the  rise  of  the  printing 
press,  the  conditions  of  popular  learning  came  back  again  and  brought 
again  the  Bible  for  the  people.  And  Luther's  teaching  had  prepared  the 
people  for  the  Bible.  They  had  learned  to  look  upon  it  as  the  one  in- 
fallible authority  in  matters  of  religion — an  authority  that  each  one  could 

1  De  Actis  et  Scriptis,  p.  55.  Cochlseus  complains  of  Luther's  translation : 
Contra  ucterem  et  probatam  Ecclesiae  lectionem,  multa  immutauit,  multa  decerpsit, 
multa  addidit,  et  in  alium  sensum  detorsit:  multas  adjecit  in  marginibus  passim 
glossas  erroneas  atque  cauillosas,  et  in  prefationibus  nihil  malignitis  omisit,  ut  in 
partes  suas  traheret  lectorem.  ib.,  p.  54. 

*  For  example,  the  synod  of  Toulouse,  1229,  cap.  xiv,  decreed:  Prohibemus  etiam, 
ne  libros  veteris  testamenti  aut  nom,  laid  permittantur  habere.  Mansi,  22:  196. 
Many  similar  rules  were  enacted  by  local  synods,  and,  though  no  ecumenical 
council  approved  them,  the  practice  of  the  Church  generally  was  in  accord  with 
such  canons. 


THE  NEW  LUTHER  175 

consult  for  himself.  In  former  times  the  question  had  been  as  to  whether 
reason  or  faith  should  have  precedence.  In  the  new  order  there  was  room 
for  both  faith  and  reason;  it  was  the  office  of  faith  humbly  to  accept 
the  word  of  God,  it  was  the  office  of  reason  to  interpret  that  word.  And 
this  office  of  interpretation  did  not  belong  to  the  learned  alone;  the 
Scriptures  address  themselves  to  the  common  sense  of  men. 

In  the  ensuing  controversies,  the  Lutherans  were  far  more  ready  in 
quoting  the  Scriptures  than  the  Catholics,  and  so  they  generally  seemed 
to  the  bystanders  to  have  the  better  in  the  argument;  their  credit  went 
up  and  that  of  the  Catholics  went  down.  Even  the  most  learned  Cath- 
olic theologians,  because  they  did  not  know  the  Scriptures,  seemed  to 
the  multitude  to  know  nothing.  In  other  respects  their  studies  had  not 
fitted  them  for  the  present  emergency.  They  had  neglected  the  lan- 
guages and  polite  learning,  and  that  at  a  time  when  learning  was  the 
rage.  The  Lutherans  on  the  other  hand,  through  the  influence  of  Luther, 
Erasmus,  Zwingli,  Oekolampaduus,  Melanchthon  and  others,  had  given 
full  attention  to  such  things.  When  the  two  parties  came  in  conflict, 
the  difference  between  them  at  once  appeared.  The  Lutherans  quoted 
Greek  and  Hebrew,  to  the  confusion  of  their  opponents  and  to  the  ad- 
miration of  all  who  heard  them.  Their  evident  superiority  in  the  use  of 
the  new  and  popular  weapons  made  them  bold  and  aggressive,  using  at 
times  terms  of  contempt  and  making  even  learned  men  seem  contempt- 
ible. In  the  enthusiasm  of  learning,  and  in  the  excitement  of  controversy, 
their  powers  were  stimulated  and  their  zeal  quickened.  The  Catholics 
were  everywhere  on  the  defensive;  they  were  without  a  leader,  divided 
and  hampered  by  the  consciousness  that  in  many  things  their  party 
was  in  the  wrong.  The  Lutherans  had  no  misgivings;  they  were  sure 
that  they  were  in  the  right.  They  were  kept  together  by  their  devotion 
to  Luther  and  directed  by  his  strong  spirit.  Him  they  regarded  as  the 
one  true  theologian;  his  adversaries  they  reviled  as  ignorant,  enemies 
of  the  truth,  and  as  hating  him  simply  because  he  had  cut  off  or  dimin- 
ished their  stipends.  In  all  this  we  have  the  explanation  of  the  rapid 
spread  of  Luther's  doctrines. 

But  while  the  printers  were  thus  coining  money  from  the  sale  of  the 
German  Bible,  Luther  himself  never  received  one  Pfennig  of  profit  from 
it.  He  even  declined  a  share  of  the  profits  when  it  was  offered  him,  thus 
furnishing  an  unquestionable  proof  of  his  disinterestedness.  It  was  a  case 
where,  like  Paul  at  Corinth,  he  chose  not  to  avail  himself  of  an  un- 
doubted right,  in  order  that  all  might  see  that  he  sought  the  good  of 
his  countrymen,  not  his  own  advancement,  in  making  this  version. 
Nothing  that  Luther  ever  did  better  became  him  than  this  action,  or 
showed  to  better  advantage  the  essential  nobility  of  his  nature.  Surely, 


176  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

if  we  find  in  him  great  faults,  he  had  also  great  virtues,  for  which  the 
world  does  well  to  hold  him  in  high  honor. 

It  should  occasion  no  surprise  that  Luther  and  his  colleagues  devoted 
so  much  time  and  energy  to  this  work  of  translating  and  circulating  the 
Scriptures.  In  Luther's  case,  hi  particular,  it  was  the  natural  result  of 
his  personal  experience,  and  was  also  a  logical  necessity  of  his  position. 
From  the  day  on  which  he  had  discovered  a  copy  of  the  Latin  Bible 
in  the  library  at  Erfurt,  the  study  of  the  Book  of  books  had  been  his 
favorite  occupation.  He  provoked  the  criticisms  of  some  of  his  fellows 
in  the  monastery  by  this  devotion  to  the  Bible.  When  he  began  to 
teach  at  Wittenberg,  as  soon  as  possible  he  made  the  exposition  of  the 
Scriptures  his  special  theme,  delighting  above  all  things  in  lecturing  on 
the  Psalms  and  the  epistle  to  the  Galatians.  He  loved  to  call  himself 
a  "Doctor  of  the  Scriptures."  In  any  case,  therefore,  the  giving  of  the 
Bible  hi  their  native  tongue  to  the  German  people  would  have  been  a 
most  congenial  work  to  him. 

But  as  he  went  on,  particularly  after  he  became  involved  in  the  con- 
troversy regarding  indulgences,  the  Scriptures  continually  assumed 
greater  importance  hi  his  eyes.  Experience  led  him,  and  his  enemies 
drove  him,  step  by  step,  until  he  had  no  recourse  and  no  defense  but 
the  Scriptures;  and  at  Leipzig,  in  debate  with  Eck,  he  definitely  took  his 
stand  on  the  word  of  God  as  the  final  authority,  superior  to  both  Popes 
and  councils.  This  position  he  had  triumphantly  maintained  at  Worms, 
and  by  so  doing  he  had  made  the  issue  between  the  authority  of  Scrip- 
ture and  the  authority  of  the  Church  a  plain  one,  that  the  common 
people  could  perfectly  understand.  But  if  they  could  understand, 
they  could  not  verify.  Few  of  them  had  the  Scriptures,  and  the  version 
that  some  of  them  had  was  archaic  and  difficult  to  comprehend.  The 
more  Luther  and  his  supporters  appealed  to  Scripture,  the  more  needful 
it  became  that  the  plain  people  should  have  the  Bible  in  their  hands, 
hi  a  form  that  they  could  understand.  The  question  of  the  success 
or  failure  of  the  Reformation  had  practically  been  referred  by  the  Edict 
of  Worms  to  the  German  people  for  decision.  The  placing  of  the  German 
Bible  hi  their  hands  at  this  psychological  moment  brought  them  to 
decide  for  the  Reformation  and  not  against  it.  Of  all  that  Luther  ever 
did,  this  was  the  most  effective  thing  in  making  the  Reformation  im- 
mediately successful,  and  in  insuring  its  permanence. 

But  while  the  leader  was  thus  in  seclusion  at  the  Wartburg  another 
work  had  been  produced  and  published  that  was  only  less  influential 
on  the  course  of  the  Reformation  than  the  writings  of  Luther  himself. 
Melanchthon  had  been  laboring  on  a  brief,  terse  statement  of  the  new 
evangelical  doctrines.  For  this  undertaking  he  was  peculiarly  adapted. 


THE  NEW  LUTHER  177 

He  had  a  more  philosophical  mind  than  Luther,  who  never  became  a 
theologian  in  any  strict  sense  of  that  term,  and  always  acknowledged 
his  friend's  superiority  to  himself  as  scholar  and  systematic  thinker. 
If  Luther  could  write  with  incomparable  force  in  German,  Melanchthon 
was  unquestionably  his  master  in  latinity.  The  new  work  was  sent 
in  MS.  to  Luther  at  the  Wartburg,  and  on  being  received  back  with  well- 
deserved  warmth  of  commendation,  it  was  sent  to  press,  and  toward 
the  close  of  1521  appeared  the  Loci  Communes  Rerum  Theologicarum. 
The  little  book  grew  out  of  Melanchthon's  exegetical  lectures  during  the 
year  1520  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans.  The  notes  on  these  lectures 
were  taken  down,  gathered  and  published  without  his  consent.  What 
others  had  done  in  a  fragmentary  and  unsatisfactory  way  made  it  neces- 
sary for  him  to  do  something  better  and  more  satisfactory.  This  is  the 
origin  of  his  famous  Loci  Communes,  the  first  Lutheran  theology.  It 
was  not  a  systematic  treatise.  He  began  by  expressing  a  sort  of  contempt 
for  the  idle  speculations  of  the  scholastic  theologians  on  the  Trinity  and 
the  Incarnation.  He  would  confine  himself  to  practical  matters:  the. 
knowledge  of  what  the  law  requires  of  us ;  whence  we  can  get  the  strength 
to  keep  the  law;  whence  forgiveness  of  sin;  how  the  soul  may  be  strength- 
ened against  the  devil,  the  flesh  and  the  world;  how  the  troubled  conscience 
may  be  calmed.  In  a  word,  writing  at  a  time  of  fierce  controversy  he 
did  not  undertake  to  discuss  questions  on  which  all  parties  were  agreed, 
but  to  explain  and  enforce  the  peculiar  phases  of  doctrine  taught  at  the 
university  of  Wittenberg.  There  were  two  distinguishing  things  about 
his  method:  In  the  first  place  he  discarded  the  multitudinous  divisions 
of  the  schoolmen — his  theology  was  not  like  the  theology  of  Peter 
Lombard  or  Thomas  Aquinas,  or  Duns  Scotus,  or  any  of  the  rest.  In 
the  second  place  he  appealed  to  the  Scriptures,  literally  and  rationally 
interpreted,  as  his  one  sufficient  authority.  He  rarely  made  quotations 
even  from  the  older  Fathers.  It  was  the  method  of  the  new  age,  applied 
to  religious  discussions;  and  therefore  the  beginning  of  a  new  kind  of 
theology.  Melanchthon's  book  has  been  caUed  an  exposition  of  the 
theology  of  the  University  of  Wittenberg.  This  is  just  what  it  was: 
the  teaching  of  Luther,  as  Melanchthon  understood  it,  explained  in  a  calm, 
clear  and  forceful  style,  to  which  Luther  was  a  stranger. 

Melanchthon  must  be  regarded  as  even  more  of  a  theological  prodigy 
than  Calvin,  for  the  latter  was  within  two  or  three  months  of  his  twenty- 
seventh  birthday  when  his  "Institutes"  were  published,  while  the  former 
lacked  about  two  months  of  completing  his  twenty-fourth  year  when 
the  Loci  appeared.  As  was  the  case  with  Calvin  later,  the  young  Witten- 
berg professor  leaped  into  European  fame  by  this  one  publication.  Known 
before  this  to  scholars,  he  now  became  known  to  everybody  who  read 


178  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

the  current  literature  of  the  age,  for  the  book  was  not  made  for  learned 
divines  and  great  scholars  alone,  but  for  all  intelligent  and  thoughtful 
people.  The  parallel  with  Calvin  goes  further:  Melanchthon  labored 
with  loving  care  on  his  little  treatise  and  published  repeated  editions 
of  it  through  a  long  life,  until  he  had  greatly  enlarged  it,  removed  all 
its  early  crudities  and  made  of  it  an  almost  perfect  compendium  of 
Lutheran  doctrine.  As  such  it  was  a  theological  text-book  for  many 
generations,  taking  the  place  in  the  Protestant  Church  that  had  so 
long  been  held  by  the  "Sentences"  of  Peter  Lombard  in  Catholic  lecture- 
rooms.1 

The  Loci  were  translated  into  many  languages  and  circulated  through- 
out Europe,  finding  equal  favor  among  learned  and  unlearned,  but 
being  especially  effective  in  winning  the  adhesion  of  the  scholarly  class 
to  the  Reformation.  To  harmonize  historic  continuity  with  the  puri- 
fication of  religion  and  national  self-dependence  was  Luther's  problem; 
to  reconcile  Protestantism  and  Humanism,  evangelical  religion  and 
classical  learning  was  the  task  of  Melanchthon — in  him  the  humanist 
was  never  lost  in  the  theologian. 

No  man  could  reach  the  heart  of  the  common  people  like  Luther, 
but  no  man  in  Germany  was  listened  to  with  so  much  respect  by  the 
learned  as  Melanchthon.  Without  him  as  a  coadjutor,  Luther  would 
have  been  shorn  of  half  his  strength.  The  gifts  of  the  two  men  fitted 
them  admirably  to  complement  each  other.  Luther  was  a  man  of  tre- 
mendous force,  but  impulsive,  rough,  often  unwise;  Melanchthon's 
mildness,  caution  and  charity  supplied  a  much-needed  corrective.  On 
the  other  hand,  Melanchthon's  timidity  and  irresolution,  and  his  in- 
grained tendency  to  compromise,  would  sometimes  have  led  to  disaster 
had  they  not  been  fortunately  overruled  by  the  promptness  and  au- 
dacity of  Luther.  The  Reformation  had  need  of  the  scholars  no  less 
than  of  the  plain  people,  and  that  it  won  both  was  due  to  the  fact  that 
Luther  and  Melanchthon  were  coworkers  so  long  and  so  heartily.  With- 
out the  scholar's  pen  to  supplement  the  reformer's  voice,  the  Reforma- 
tion might  have  failed. 

Luther  well  knew  Melanchthon's  value  and  was  conscious  of  his  friend's 
superiority  in  many  ways.  Whatever  his  faults,  petty  jealousy  was  not 
a  weakness  of  the  great  leader,  and  he  bore  witness  often  to  his  friend's 
excellences  of  mind  and  heart.  He  urged  the  publication  of  Melanch- 
thon's lectures  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Colossians,  and  wrote  a  preface  for 
them  in  which  he  said:  "I  have  been  born  to  war  and  fight  with  factions 

1  Luther  thought  it  next  to  Holy  Scripture,  and  that  it  even  deserved  a  place 
in  the  Canon.  CR,  21:  77.  Cochlseus  called  it  "a  new  Alcoran,"  as  much  more 
hurtful  than  Luther's  "Babylonian  Captivity"  as  Melanchthon's  style  was 
sweeter,  his  genius  nobler  and  his  skill  greater  than  Luther's. 


THE  NEW  LUTHER  179 

and  devils,  and  therefore  my  books  are  stormy  and  warlike.  I  must  root 
out  the  stumps  and  stocks,  cut  away  the  thorns  and  hedges,  fill  up  the 
ditches,  and  am  the  rough  forester,  to  break  a  path  and  make  things 
ready.  But  master  Philip  walks  gently  and  silently,  tills  and  plants, 
sows  and  waters  with  pleasure,  as  God  has  gifted  him  richly."  A  better 
piece  of  self-criticism  and  of  generous  appreciation  of  a  fellow  was  never 
penned. 

But  a  result  even  more  important  than  the  translation  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament came  from  this  residence  at  the  Wartburg.  This  enforced  retire- 
ment gave  opportunity  for  Luther's  work  to  go  on  without  him,  and  for 
new  developments  to  occur.  It  occasioned  a  great  change  in  him,  a 
change  in  the  whole  movement,  and  a  change  in  his  relations  to  it;  and 
all  these  changes  were  of  the  most  serious  and  lasting  character.  This 
Wartburg  " captivity"  as  it  is  called,  often  thought  of  as  an  incident 
of  no  great  importance  in  Luther's  .life,  was  really  a  turning-point  of 
the  Reformation.  It  gave  room  for  the  expansion  and  new  adjustment 
of  things.  Above  all,  it  gave  Luther  time  and  seclusion  in  which  to 
develop  more  fully  his  own  ideas.  Hitherto  he  had  been  borne  along 
by  events;  henceforth  he  must  direct  events.  He  must  decide  upon  a 
policy,  instead  of  being  a  mere  opportunist,  for  it  was  clear  to  him  by 
this  time  that  if  he  lived  it  must  be  to  become  the  leader  of  a  great  move- 
ment. It  was  a  new  Luther  that  returned  from  the  Wartburg  to  Witten- 
berg. 

Luther  had  begun  his  work  as  reformer  with  no  training  in  public 
affairs,  and  he  had  no  such  native  talent  for  politics  as  Zwingli  possessed 
to  make  good  his  lack  of  experience.  He  had  lived  hi  the  cloister  and 
among  books,  and  his  studies  had  been  theological.  His  life  had  made 
him  as  unfitted  for  practical  organization  as  it  had  admirably  prepared 
him  to  be  the  spiritual  guide  of  men.  He  lacked  elementary  knowledge 
of  secular  life,  and  so  could  have  no  insight  into  the  needs  of  the  German 
people,  still  less  could  he  comprehend  the  weakness  of  the  Empire  and 
the  necessity  of  political  reconstruction.  As  the  shrewdest  and  most 
experienced  men  of  his  generation  did  not  appreciate  the  economic  and 
social  changes  that  were  going  on,  we  should  not  regard  Luther's  lack 
of  vision  as  a  fault;  still,  we  must  bear  in  mind  that  all  this  was  hidden 
from  him.  But,  like  most  men  of  little  experience  hi  affairs,  Luther's 
confidence  in  his  political  wisdom  was  always  in  inverse  ratio  to  his 
knowledge;  he  was  ever  ready  to  give  advice  as  to  how  the  great  affairs 
should  be  conducted,  and  equally  ready  with  his  blame  when  his  advice 
was  not  heeded.  At  the  Wartburg  he  began  that  course  of  interference 
with  political  administration  and  ecclesiastical  organization  which  make 
his  later  years  as  a  reformer  so  different  from  his  earlier,  and  in  the  end 


180  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

led  him  to  the  practical  denial  of  nearly  every  principle  that  he  had 
affirmed. 

The  seminal  idea  of  the  Reformation,  as  an  organized  movement,  is 
found  in  Luther's  "Address  to  the  Christian  Nobility."  In  this,  it  will 
be  remembered,  he  had  strenuously  maintained  that  all  Christians  are 
priests,  and  that  the  ecclesiastical  power  cannot  therefore  claim  a  su- 
periority over  the  temporal.  He  had  called  on  the  princes  and  rulers 
to  undertake  necessary  reforms,  and  especially  to  prevent  the  further 
robbery  of  their  people  by  the  Pope,  through  annates  and  other  exactions. 
But  the  principle  is  only  suggested,  not  fully  stated,  still  less  worked  out. 
That  Luther  was  to  do  gradually,  in  the  light  of  events.  He  had  now 
progressed  a  stage  further  in  his  thinking;  his  own  protection  by  Elector 
Frederick  against  the  combined  power  of  Pope  and  Emperor,  made  still 
clearer  to  him  the  method  by  which  a  reformation  might  be  had — the 
only  method,  he  thought,  by  which  reformation  should  be  attempted* 
While  at  the  Wartburg  he  thought  out  and  prepared  for  the  press  a  sup- 
plement to  the  "Address,"  which  he  entitled,  "Warning  to  all  Christians 
to  Abstain  from  Rebellion  and  Sedition."  His  object  is  to  maintain  the 
principle,  to  which  he  had  now  come  and  from  which  he  never  thereafter 
departed,  that  the  civil  rulers  had  both  the  right  and  the  duty  to  under- 
take the  reformation  of  the  Church,  and  that  any  other  method  was 
impracticable  and  dangerous.  "I  leave  the  secular  authorities  and  no- 
bility to  undertake  the  matter,"  he  says,  "since  it  is  within  the  scope  of 
their  regular  authority  to  do  this,  each  prince  and  lord  in  his  own  domain." 
That  which  comes  within  the  scope  of  regular  authority  cannot  be  stig- 
matized as  rebellion.  But,  he  complains,  the  princes  will  not  perform 
their  duty — "they  let  it  all  go,  one  hinders  another."  Nevertheless,  until 
they  are  ready  to  move,  "it  is  the  duty  of  the  common  man  to  quiet  his 
mind  and  to  say  that  he  will  abstain  from  desire  and  word,  turn  away 
from  rebellion,  and  not  undertake  the  matter  without  command  of  the 
ruler  or  assistance  of  the  government."  That  there  may  be  no  mistaking 
his  meaning,  Luther  says  this  again  and  again,  with  little  change  of  words : 
"Therefore  have  regard  to  the  rulers.  So  long  as  they  undertake  nothing 
and  give  no  command,  keep  quiet  with  hand,  mouth  and  heart,  and  under- 
take nothing.  If  you  can  persuade  rulers  to  undertake  and  command, 
you  may  do  it.  If  they  will  not,  you  also  should  not.  But  if  you  proceed, 
you  are  wrong  and  much  worse  than  the  other  party."  He  makes  it 
clear  why  he  takes  this  position  and  gives  this  counsel:  to  do  otherwise 
would  in  the  end  cause  greater  evils  than  those  it  was  sought  to  abolish. 
"I  hold  and  will  always  hold  with  the  party  that  shuns  rebellion,  however 
much  injustice  it  must  suffer,  and  against  that  party  that  rebels,  however 
just  its  cause.  Because,there  can  be  no  rebellion  without  the  shedding 


THE  NEW  LUTHER  181 

of  innocent  blood  and  shame."  This  advice,  after  his  usual  manner, 
Luther  proceeds  to  support  by  citation  of  numerous  passages  of  Scripture.1 

This  tract  bears  date  January  19,  1522,  which  is  probably  the  date 
when  it  was  finished  and  sent  to  Wittenberg;  doubtless  it  was  not  printed 
until  some  months  later.  Why  should  Luther  have  interrupted  his  labors 
at  the  Wartburg,  and  especially  his  translation  of  the  New  Testament, 
on  which  he  was  now  busily  engaged,  by  the  composition  of  such  a  tract? 
No  doubt  this  is  only  the  normal  development  of  his  views,  but  even 
if  we  knew  nothing  of  the  facts  we  should  suspect  that  such  development 
had  been  stimulated  by  events  in  the  outside  world,  news  of  which 
had  been  brought  to  Luther  by  his  correspondents.  Such  we  know  to 
have  been  the  fact.  While  he  was  living  in  quiet  on  his  Patmos,  im- 
portant things  were  doing  in  Wittenberg. 

Even  with  Luther  away,  Wittenberg  with  its  growing  aggressive  uni- 
versity was  the  center,  the  heart,  of  the  Reformation.  New  thoughts 
had  been  put  into  men's  minds;  new  aspirations,  new  purposes  had  come 
into  their  hearts.  The  leaven  must  work.  A  town,  especially  a  great 
school  of  learning,  gets  to  itself  a  character;  hardly  less  than  a  man 
it  has  a  soul,  a  will,  a  purpose.  Luther  was  absent,  but  the  spirit  that  he 
had  called  up  was  still  at  Wittenberg  and  could  not  be  idle.  He  had  long 
preached  against  the  mass — and  gone  on  celebrating  it.  Another,  and  a 
less  conservative  teacher,  must  begin  the  embodiment  of  the  new  teach- 
ing. The  new  leader  was  Gabriel  Zwilling,  chaplain  of  the  Augustinian 
convent,  a  bold,  zealous,  eloquent  man,  who  at  first  had  the  full  con- 
fidence of  the  peopje.  Melanchthon  said  of  him  (Dec.  27,  1521),  "He 
preaches  so  purely,  so  simply,  that  it  would  be  hard  to  find  anybody  to 
compare  with  him."  This  Gabriel  came  to  new  thoughts  about  the 
mass;  that  it  ought  to  be  abolished,  that  it  was  a  sin  to  celebrate  it. 
The  members  of  the  convent,  the  prior  excepted,  agreed  with  him. 
The  prior  asserted  his  authority,  the  monks  rebelled;  the  Elector  inter- 
fered and  referred  the  case  to  the  university.  The  university  decided 
in  favor  of  Gabriel  and  the  monks,  Melanchthon  writing  the  opinion.2 
The  Elector,  however,  opposed  innovations  and  the  mass  continued  for 
a  time.  This  was  in  October,  1521. 

The  zealous  Gabriel,  balked  in  one  thing,  turned  to  another.    This 

i  LDS,  22:  43  seq. 

8  It  is  signed  also  by  Jonas,  Carlstadt,  Schurf  and  Amsdorf .  See  the  collection 
of  documents,  including  the  reply  of  the  Elector,  in  Walch,  15:  1948  seq.  The 
admirers  of  Luther  have  represented  Carlstadt  as  introducing  these  changes 
because  of  his  restless  spirit  and  his  ambition  for  leadership.  But  these  documents 
show  clearly  that  if  he  took  the  lead,  six  other  professors  fully  sustained  him;  and 
he  acted  with  the  full  authority  of  the  town  council  of  Wittenberg.  It  is  indis- 
putable, however,  that  the  changes  were  very  distasteful  to  the  Elector;  and 
though  he  did  not  actively  interfere,  he  did  what  he  could  to  restrain  the  haste 
of  the  Wittenbergers  to  make  innovations. 


182  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

time  his  attack  was  on  monachism  itself,  and  as  the  result  of  his  preaching 
thirteen  monks  left  the  monastery.  It  was  the  first  fruits  of  the  Refor- 
mation; the  spirit  of  reform  was  fast  changing  into  the  spirit  of  revolu- 
tion. The  obstinate  (or  brave)  prior  was  overawed  by  the  turbulent 
feeling.  Students  entered  the  chapel  December  3d,  and  expelled  the  priests 
who  were  preparing  to  read  mass.  No  one  knew  what  they  would  do 
next,  and  disturbing  rumors  were  circulated.  The  university  authorities 
had  the  offending  students  arrested,  but  nothing  could  stop  the  in- 
coming wave.  Carlstadt  now  took  the  lead.  "What  madness,"  he 
said,  "to  think  that  we  must  leave  the  Reformation  to  God  alone.  A 
new  order  of  things  is  beginning.  The  hand  of  man  must  interfere." 
He  announced  that  on  the  first  day  of  the  new  year  he  would  celebrate 
the  Lord's  Supper  after  the  ancient  manner  and  in  both  kinds.  When 
opposition  threatened  he  anticipated  the  time  and  held  the  service 
on  Christmas  Day.  A  beginning  was  made;  opposition  was  silenced 
and  Carlstadt  had  his  way.  On  New  Year's  Day  and  the  following 
Sunday  and  thereafter  the  new  (or  old)  rite  was  celebrated  in  Witten- 
berg. One  of  the  Elector's  counsellors  accused  Carlstadt  of  self-seeking; 
he  replied:  "Mighty  Lord,  there  is  no  form  of  death  that  can  make  me 
withdraw  from  Scripture.  The  word  has  come  upon  me  with  such 
promptitude  that  woe  is  me  if  I  preach  it  not." 

Priests  were  marrying,  monks  were  leaving  their  monasteries,  the 
mass  was  giving  place  to  the  Lord's  Supper,  images  were  condemned 
and  thrust  out  of  the  churches.  Things  were  going  too  fast  for  the 
Elector,  too  fast  for  Luther.  In  his  quiet  retreat  at  the  Wartburg  he 
wrote  against  the  mass  and  against  monkish  vows,  but  how  great  a  step 
there  is  between  condemning  old  customs  in  our  hearts  and  changing 
them  with  our  hands — between  the  thought  and  the  act!  Luther  did 
not  like  what  had  been  done.  He  said:  "They  have  introduced  changes 
in  the  mass  and  images,  attacked  the  sacrament  and  other  things  that 
are  of  no  account,  and  have  let  faith  and  love  go;  just  as  though  all  the 
world  hereabout  had  great  understanding  in  these  matters,  which  is 
not  the  fact;  and  so  they  have  brought  it  about  that  many  pious  people 
have  been  stirred  up  to  do  what  is  really  the  devil's  work.  It  would, 
indeed,  be  a  good  thing  to  begin  such  changes,  if  we  could  all  together 
have  the  needful  faith;  and  if  they  suited  the  church  in  such  measure 
that  no.  one  should  take  offense  at  them.  But  this  can  never  be.  We 
cannot  all  be  learned  as  Carlstadt.  Therefore  we  must  yield  to  the  weak; 
otherwise  those  who  are  strong  will  run  far,  and  the  weak  who  cannot 
follow  them  at  like  pace  will  be  run  down."  l  This  he  said  in  a  letter 

1  De  Wette,  2:  118.  It  is  difficult  to  understand  how  Luther  persuaded  himself 
that  he  had  any  ground  of  complaint;  Carlstadt  and  others  were  only  doing  what 


THE  NEW  LUTHER  183 

to  the  Wittenbergers  in  December,  1521.  It  was  not  by  him,  but  by 
men  of  a  different  type,  that  this  practical  work  was  to  be  begun.  There 
was  need  of  Zwilling  and  Carlstadt.  It  was  one  of  those  occasions  when 
fanatics  do  a  real  service  for  mankind.  Strong  in  their  own  convictions, 
seeing  only  one  thing,  reckless  of  all  consequences,  they  are  brave  where 
wise  men  stand  appalled.  With  no  misgiving  they  kindle  a  fire  that  may 
wrap  the  world  in  flame.  But  for  what  they  did  at  Wittenberg,  Luther's 
preaching  and  writing  might  have  ended  hi  preaching  and  writing. 
Something  was  to  be  done,  and  they  did  it! 

But  fanatics,  sometimes  useful  in  precipitating  a  conflict,  are  useless 
and  dangerous  in  everything  else.  They  can  raise  a  storm,  some  one  else 
must  direct  it;  they  may  pull  down,  others  must  build  up.  At  Witten- 
berg extravagance  soon  reached  an  alarming  height — the  native  fanat- 
icism was  reinforced  by  fanaticism  from  abroad.  There  came  from 
Zwickau  three  men  who  claimed  to  be  prophets,1  and  turned  the  heads 
of  many.  They  greatly  puzzled  Melanchthon,  who  wrote  to  the  Elector: 
"Your  highness  knows  how  many  and  what  dangerous  dissensions  have 
been  stirred  up  at  Zwickau  about  the  word  of  God.  And  some  there 
who  have  made  what  changes  I  know  not  have  been  cast  into  prison. 
Three  of  the  authors  of  these  commotions  have  fled  thither,  two  weavers, 
uneducated  men,  the  third  a  scholar.  I  have  heard  them.  They  say 
wonderful  things  of  themselves:  that  they  have  been  commissioned 
to  teach  by  a  clear  voice  from  God;  that  they  hold  familiar  converse 
with  God;  that  they  see  into  the  future;  briefly,  that  they  are  prophetic 
and  apostolic  men.  I  can  hardly  say  how  much  they  affect  me.  Many 
considerations  make  me  unwilling  to  despise  them.  It  is  evident  from 
many  reasons  that  there  are  spirits  in  them,  but  no  one  save  Martin  can 
judge  of  them."  He  thought  the  Gospel  was  in  danger,  and  wished  the 
Elector  to  bring  it  about  that  Luther  should  see  the  prophets.  This 
letter  was  written  December  27th,  and  the  same  day  Melanchthon  wrote 
to  Spalatin  a  letter  of  similar  import,  only  emphasizing  his  anxiety.2 

The  prophets  denounced  the  Church  as  then  existing;  taught  the  in- 
validity of  infant  baptism;  that  nothing  had  been  rightly  carried  on  hi 
the  Church,  because  it  was  under  the  control  of  evil  men;  that  God  had 
determined  to  destroy  the  generation  then  living  and  raise  up  another 

he  had  clearly  taught  in  his  "Misuse  of  the  Mass,"  and  avowed  his  own  intention 
of  doing  in  a  letter  to  Melanchthon  the  preceding  August  1st.  He  had  distinctly 
avowed  his  purpose  to  seek  the  restoration  of  the  eucharist  in  both  kinds,  and 
declared  that  he  will  never  again  celebrate  a  private  mass.  De  Wette,  2:  36. 

1  These  prophets,  not  known  except  for  a  short  time,  were  Nicolas  Storch  and 
Marcus  Thomae,   the  weavers,   and    Marcus  Stiibner,   the  scholar.      Some  say 
there  were  not  two  by  the  name  of  Marcus,  but  one  Marcus  Thomae  Stiibner — 
not  a  very  important  matter.     Gieseler,  4:  62;  Schaff,  6:  380. 

2  CR,  1:  513;  ci.  518,  533.    The  letter  is  given  in  full  in  Richard's  "Philip  Me- 
lanchthon," pp.  86,  87. 


184  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

endued  with  righteousness.  They  boasted  that  they  had  the  gift  of 
foreknowledge  and  of  judging  secret  things.1  Sometimes  revelations 
came  to  them  in  dreams,  sometimes,  rarely,  in  open  vision.  No  one 
was  to  give  himself  to  art  or  to  literature,  or  study  to  learn;  he  was 
only  to  seek  revelation  from  God,  who  had  no  need  of  human  help. 

All  these  things  are  very  like  what  was  taught  by  the  Taborites,  the 
fanatical  wing  of  the  Husites,  a  hundred  years  before.  From  the  sim- 
ilarity of  doctrines  some  have  supposed  that  the  men  from  Zwickau 
descended  from  the  Taborites,  but  of  this  there  is  no  direct  proof.  In  proc- 
ess of  time  the  Taborites  lost  most  of  their  extravagances,  and  became 
a  quiet,  uninteresting  people;  and  besides,  the  spontaneous  uprising  of 
such  parties  was  no  new  thing  in  the  history  of  the  Church.  Given  the 
same  general  conditions,  the  same  general  phases  of  doctrine  appear. 
Few  things  have  stood  more  in  the  way  of  a  clear  understanding  of  the 
history  of  the  Church  than  the  supposition  that  all  similar  phenomena 
must  be  linked  together  by  an  unbroken  chain  of  succession.  Men 
hold  Arian  views  who  never  heard  of  Arius.  There  are  ecstatic  prophets 
who  did  not  descend  from  the  Montanists.  If  we  must  have  an  ex- 
planation of  the  rise  of  the  Zwickau  prophets,  we  need  not  look  further 
than  the  unrest  of  the  times,  the  rejection  of  all  ecclesiastical  develop- 
ments, and  the  attempt  with  the  New  Testament  alone  for  a  guide  to 
organize  a  new  primitive  Christianity.  Such  attempts  have  invariably 
been  attended  by  extravagances,  which  however  are  usually  corrected 
by  experience.  Happy  would  it  be  if  the  truth  that  extravagant  parties 
almost  always  hold  should  not  be  obscured  and  discredited  by  the  folly 
that  they  mix  with  it! 

The  effect  produced  by  the  preaching  of  the  new  prophets  was  just 
such  as  might  have  been  expected.  The  people,  having  lost  their  hold 
on  the  old,  were  ready  to  take  up  with  anything  that  came  with  a  plausible 
face.  Even  the  most  prudent  were  afraid  to  condemn  anything  that 
might  have  truth  in  it,  and  especially  were  they  unwilling  to  reject 
anything  that  seemed  to  be  taught  in  Scripture.2  It  was  hard  to  draw 
the  line  between  that  which  was  local  and  temporary  in  the  early  Church 

1  Stiibner  said,  "Martin  is  right  on  most  points,  but  not  on  all.      Another  will 
come  after  him  with  a  better  spirit.     The  Turks  shall  soon  take  possession  of 
Germany.     All  priests  shall  be  slain  if  they  now  take  wives.     In  a  short  time, 
about  five,  six  or  seven  years,  there  shall  be  such  a  change  in  the  world  that  no 
ungodly  or  sinful  men  shall  remain  alive.    Then  there  shall  be  one  way,  one  bap- 
tism, one  faith.    The  baptism  of  infants,  as  now  administered,  before  they  have 
reason,  is  no  baptism."     Gieseler,  4:  62. 

2  Spalatin,  who  was  present  at  the  Elector's  council  when  this  matter  was  con- 
sidered, relates  that  Frederick  said:  "This  is  a  most  weighty  and  difficult  affair, 
which  I  as  a  layman  do  not  profess  to  understand.    God  has  given  to  me  and  my 
brother  considerable  wealth,  but  if  I  could  obtain  a  right  understanding  of  this 
matter,  I  declare  that  I  would  rather  take  my  staff  in  my  hand  and  quit  everything 
I  possess,  than  knowingly  resist  the  will  of  God."     Walch,  15:  1978. 


THE  NEW  LUTHER  185 

and  that  which  was  permanent  and  universal.  It  was  harder  still  to  mark 
the  limits  of  promise  or  prophecy.  The  new  prophets  seemed  to  have 
some  support  for  their  views  in  the  New  Testament — at  least,  it  was 
difficult  to  show  that  they  did  not.  They  won  many  over  to  their  party. 
The  danger  was  so  great  that  the  Elector  advised  Amsdorf  and  Melanch- 
thon  not  to  mix  with  the  people.  Carlstadt  went  entirely  over.  He 
and  Zwilling  and  George  More,  masters  of  the  boys'  school,  ruined  that 
school,  and  the  university  itself  was  threatened.  They  decried  all  human 
learning.  Carlstadt  went  about  asking  the  citizens  to  interpret  passages 
from  the  prophets  for  him — the  deep  things  were  hidden  from  the  wise 
and  prudent  and  revealed  unto  babes!  Learned  men  were  not  to  be 
allowed  to  preach  or  to  be  priests;  laymen  and  mechanics  who  could  read 
were  to  become  the  teachers  of  the  people.  Of  course  this  flood  would 
subside,  but  who  could  resist  its  force  or  repair  the  damage  of  it? 

Luther  had  been  kept  informed  of  what  was  going  on  at  Wittenberg, 
and  could  not  but  be  anxious  as  to  the  outcome  of  it  all.  In  December 
(1521)  he  made  a  secret  visit  to  his  friends,  strengthened  them  and  re- 
turned to  the  Wartburg,  himself  somewhat  reassured.  It  was  after  his 
visit  that  the  prophets  appeared,  and  he  did  not  approve  Melanchthqn's 
doubt  and  timidity  in  dealing  with  them.  He  thought  his  friend  ought 
not  to  have  listened  to  them.  They  had  done  nothing  and  said  nothing 
that  might  not  have  been  inspired  by  Satan.  He  did  not  deny  them 
prophetic  gift  and  power.1  Melanchthon  had  been  troubled  about 
infant  baptism;  he  thought  it  a  real  question  whether  infants  ought  to 
be  baptized;  Augustine  and  others  had  disputed  much  about  it  and  had 
not  made  the  matter  clear.  The  chief  difficulty  was  whether  the  faith 
of  parents  would  suffice  for  their  children.  The  prophets  said,  No;  and 
Luther  himself  had  taught  that  there  was  no  valid  approach  to  the 
sacraments  without  faith.  But  now,  in  strengthening  Melanchthon, 
he  reaffirmed  the  old  Augustinian  doctrine  that  the  faith  of  sponsors 

*  Luther  to  Melanchthon,  June  13,  1522:  "In  regard  to  these  prophets  I  cannot 
approve  of  your  timidity,  though  you  are  my  superior  both  in  capacity  and  eru- 
dition. In  the  first  place,  when  they  bear  record  of  themselves  they  ought  not  to 
be  implicitly  believed,  but  their  spirits  should  be  tried,  as  John  admonishes. 
You  know  Gamaliel's  advice,  but  I  have  heard  of  nothing  said  or  done  by  them 
which  Satan  himself  could  not  imitate.  I  would  have  you  examine  whether  they 
can  produce  a  proof  of  their  commission,  for  God  never  sent  anyone,  not  even 
his  own  Son,  who  was  not  either  properly  called  to  the  office,  or  authorized  by 
miracles.  The  ancient  prophets  were  legally  appointed;  and  their  mere  assertion 
of  being  called  by  a  divine  revelation  is  not  sufficient  warrant  for  receiving  them, 
since  God  did  not  even  speak  to  Samuel  but  with  the  authority  of  Eli.  So  much 
for  their  public  character.  You  should  also  examine  their  private  spirit,  whether 
they  have  experienced  spiritual  distresses  and  conflicts  with  death  and  hell,  and 
the  power  of  regeneration.  If  you  hear  smooth,  tranquil,  and  what  they  call 
devout  and  religious  raptures,  though  they  speak  of  being  caught  up  to  the  third 
heavens,  do  not  regard  them  while  the  sign  of  the  Son  of  Man  is  wanting,  the 
cross,  the  only  touchstone  of  Christians,  and  the  sure  discerner  of  spirits."  De 
Wette,  2:  124;  Michelet,  114. 


186  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

suffices  for  infants  in  baptism.  He  wrote  to  Spalatin  not  to  let  the 
Elector  persecute  the  fanatics.  As  the  trouble  grew,  especially  when 
Carlstadt  began  to  make  changes,  when  the  old  order  began  to  be  broken 
up,  and  violence  and  tumult  seemed  about  to  sweep  everything  away, 
he  could  no  longer  remain  in  seclusion.  He  must  come  forth  and  re- 
store order.  Accordingly  he  left  the  Wartburg  March  1st,  without  con- 
sulting the  Elector,  and  on  the  7th  of  the  same  month  he  was  again  in 
Wittenberg.1 

His  first  business  was  to  allay  the  passion  for  change.  This  he  was  to 
do,  not  by  force  of  law,  but  by  argument,  by  instruction,  but  still  more 
by  the  commanding  influence  of  his  own  strong  spirit.  The  agency 
he  employed  was  preaching.  For  eight  days,  beginning  with  the  8th 
and  ending  with  the  16th  of  March,  he  preached  to  the  people,  re- 
buked, exhorted,  persuaded  them  to  observe  moderation.  It  had  been 
nearly  a  year  since  he  had  left  them  to  go  to  Worms.  Their  hearts 
went  with  him  there.  His .  conduct  before  the  Diet  had  stimulated 
their  admiration,  their  love,  their  pride;  his  condemnation  had  excited 
their  fear  and  increased  their  devotion;  for  a  time  uncertainty  as  to 
his  fate  had  caused  them  the  profoundest  anxiety.  The  trouble  and 
confusion  of  the  last  few  months,  the  feeling  that  they  knew  not  whither 
to  go  and  that  they  had  no  one  to  guide  them,  made  them  think  of  him 
and  wish  for  him  as  shipwrecked  sailors  wish  for  the  day.  And  he  had 
come !  He  was  with  them,  he  was  speaking  to  them.  Never  did  a  preacher 
have  a  greater  need  to  speak  wisely,  or  a  people  to  hear  honestly.  And 
Luther  preached  wisely.  He  did  not  blame  them  for  what  they  did, 
but  they  had  done  it  at  the  wrong  time  and  in  the  wrong  way.  They 
had  had  faith,  it  may  be,  but  they  had  not  had  charity.  The  word  of 
God  must  be  permitted  to  do  its  work  without  the  help  of  man.  Violence 
was  not  needed.  He  himself  had  used  nothing  but  the  word  of  God 
against  the  Pope,  and  yet  no  one  for  years  had  done  the  Pope  so  much 
harm.2 

Luther  also  proclaimed  in  public  for  the  first  time  the  new  idea  of 
reformation  that  he  had  worked  out  at  the  Wartburg.  The  people  of 
Wittenberg  had  done  wrong  to  begin  this  work  without  the  authority 
of  their  prince.  Obedience  was  due  to  the  government,  and  they  must 
wait  patiently  until  it  was  ready  to  begin  the  work  of  reform.  Rebellion 

1  He  wrote  a  letter  at  Borna,  on  the  way  to  Wittenberg,  March  5th,  disclaiming 
further  protection  by  the  Elector.  De  Wette,  2:  137,  Currie,  98.  It  is  a  char- 
acteristic blunder  of  Froude's  that  he  should  say,  "The  Elector  of  Saxony  re- 
called him  from  Wartburg  (sic),  as  he  was  no  longer  in  personal  danger,  to  take 
command  in  reorganizing  the  Church." — "Life  and  Letters  of  Erasmus,"  313. 

*  The  eight  sermons  are  in  LDS,  28:  202  seq.,  and  Walch,  20:  5  seq.  A  summary 
of  the  first  five  is  given  in  Walch,  15:  1979.  For  Carlstadt's  excuse  of  his  conduct, 
see  LDS,  64:  404,  408. 


THE  NEW  LUTHER  187 

was  one  of  the  greatest  sins  of  which  Christian  men  could  be  guilty. 
They  must  retrace  their  steps;  the  things  that  had  been  changed  must 
be  changed  back  again.  The  mass,  some  few  things  omitted,  was  restored. 
Luther  returned  to  the  monastery  and  continued  to  be  a  monk.  But 
those  who  chose  to  celebrate  the  Lord's  Supper  after  Carlstadt's  manner 
were  to  be  permitted  to  do  so.  Even  Luther  could  not  undo  all  that  had 
been  done;  overt  acts  had  been  committed,  the  power  of  custom  had 
been  broken,  a  beginning  had  been  made.  The  work  of  Carlstadt  was 
to  remain  and  grow.  Those  who  celebrated  the  Supper  in  both  kinds 
multiplied;  those  who  had  cast  off  then*  monastic  vows  did  not  take 
them  up  again;  and  others  followed  their  example.  Images,  broken 
or  unbroken,  continued  to  disappear  from  the  churches.  The  fanatics 
had  begun  the  work  that  Luther  only  preached  about,  and  it  could  not 
be  stopped. 

The  Luther  that  returned  was  not  the  Luther  that  had  left  Wittenberg. 
He  was  not  the  same  in  himself  or  in  his  relations  to  the  movement  of 
which  he  had  been  and  still  was  the  principal  instigator.  At  Worms 
he  was  still  in  a  sense  a  private  person;  no  one  was  pledged  to  him  and 
it  was  still  uncertain  whether  his  condemnation  and  death  would  not  end 
the  whole  business.  But  he  had  been  condemned  and  nothing  came  of  it. 
When  the  first  dazed  feeling  was  over,  men  realized  as  they  had  not 
before  realized  that  a  great  conflict  had  begun  and  that  Luther  was  the 
leader  of  one  party — the  party  of  reform,  the  party  of  liberty.  And  no 
one  felt  this  more  keenly  than  Luther  himself.  The  persuasion  had 
been  long  growing  in  him  that  he  was  a  divinely  chosen  instrument. 
He  felt  it  when  he  burned  the  Pope's  bull;  he  felt  it  at  Worms;  he  felt 
it  even  more  at  the  Wartburg.  That  was  a  very  noteworthy  letter  of 
his  to  the  Archbishop  of  Mainz.  He  had  heard  that  indulgences  were 
to  be  sold  at  Halle  by  the  Archbishop's  authority,  and  he  wrote  a  book 
against  it  that  the  Elector  Frederick  would  not  permit  him  to  publish. 
Thereupon  he  wrote  to  the  Archbishop,  December  1st: 

Your  Electoral  Grace:  they  have  now  set  up  again  the  idol  in 
Halle,  which  takes  away  from  poor  simple  Christians  their  money 
and  their  souls.  Your  Electoral  Grace  perhaps  thinks  that  I  have 
given  up  my  plans  .  .  .  and  that  my  mouth  has  been  shut  by  his 
Imperial  Majesty.  Your  Electoral  Grace  will  be  mindful  of  the 
beginning,  what  a  terrible  fire  has  grown  out  of  the  small  despised 
spark,  when  all  the  world  was  so  sure  about  it,  and  thought  that  the 
poor  beggar  was  immeasurably  too  small  for  the  Pope,  and  under- 
took impossibilities.  But  God  has  taken  up  this  cause;  he  has  given 
the  Pope  and  his  followers  enough  to  do;  against  and  above  all  the 
thought  of  the  world  he  has  carried  the  matter  to  a  point  from  which 
the  Pope  will  hardly  be  able  to  bring  it  back;  it  will  grow  worse 
with  him  daily,  so  that  the  work  of  God  herein  may  be  more  clearly 


188  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

recognized.  The  same  God  lives  still;  let  no  one  doubt  it  now;  and 
he  has  the  same  skill  to  withstand  a  cardinal  of  Mainz,  though  four 
Emperors  were  to  stand  by  him.  He  has  also  especial  pleasure  in 
breaking  the  lofty  cedars,  and  abasing  the  haughty  hardened  Pha- 
raohs. But  let  not  your  Electoral  Grace  think  that  Luther  is  dead; 
he  will  glory  freely  and  joyously  in  the  God  who  has  humbled  the 
Pope,  and  begin  a  game  with  the  Cardinal  of  Mainz  that  he  did 
not  expect. 

He  demanded  that  the  Archbishop  should  abolish  the  idol  and  let  the 
married  priests  alone.  He  would  wait  fourteen  days  for  a  plain  answer: 
if  the  answer  did  not  come  in  that  time  the  attack  would  be  made.  The 
Archbishop's  letter  in  reply,  dated  December  21st,  is  not  less  remarkable 
than  Luther's.  He  had  received  the  letter,  he  said,  and  took  it  in  good 
part,  and  the  cause  that  moved  Luther  to  write  had  been  done  away. 
He  continues:  "I  will  conduct  and  show  myself,  if  God  will,  as  becomes 
a  pious  Christian  prince,  so  far  as  God  shall  give  me  grace,  strength  and 
understanding;  for  which  I  pray  truly  and  will  have  prayer  offered  for 
me.  I  can  do  nothing  of  my  own  self  and  confess  that  I  stand  in  need 
of  the  grace  of  God.  I  cannot  deny  that  I  am  a  poor  sinful  man,  who 
may  sin  and  err,  and  do  daily  sin  and  err."  The  Archbishop  and  the 
monk  seem  to  have  strangely  changed  places:  it  is  the  poor  monk  who 
threatens  and  commands,  and  the  proud  Lord  who  humbly  obeys.1 

When  Luther  at  this  time  dealt  with  the  Elector  Frederick  there  was 
the  same  reversal  of  positions,  except  that  Frederick  was  not  quite  so 
compliant.  The  Elector  did  not  approve  the  attack  on  the  Archbishop; 
he  was  afraid  that  the  book  might  endanger  the  public  peace;  he  did 
not  wish  it  published,  and  directed  Spalatin  so  to  inform  Luther.  Luther 
was  furious.  He  had  never  read  a  more  disagreeable  letter  in  his  life.  "  I 
will  not  put  up  with  it,"  he  declared;  "I  will  rather  lose  you  and  the 
prince  himself  and  every  living  being.  If  I  have  stood  up  against  the 
Pope,  why  should  I  yield  to  his  creature?"2  When  we  remember  who 
Luther  was,  and  who  the  Elector  was,  and  how  they  were  related  to  each 
other — that  Luther  at  that  moment  was  under  the  ban  and  owed  his  life 
to  the  Elector's  care  for  him — his  language  seems  at  least  extraordinary. 
He  had  reached  a  point  where  he  was  no  longer  willing  to  be  controlled 
and  where  he  felt  no  need  of  human  protection.  When  he  thought  of 
returning  to  Wittenberg  the  Elector  was  unwilling  for  him  to  do  so — 
his  return  would  force  his  prince  either  to  give  him  up  or  to  banish  him, 
or  to  protect  him  in  defiance  of  the  imperial  edict.  The  Elector  had 
therefore  a  right  to  be  consulted  as  a  friend,  as  well  as  obeyed  as  a  prince. 

1  Both  letters  are  given  in  full  in  Michelet,  104-107.    Originals  in  Walch,   19: 
548-553;  Luther's  letter  only  in  De  Wette,  2:  112. 

2  De  Wette,  2:  94. 


THE  NEW  LUTHER  189 

But  Luther  broke  through  all  restraint;  the  need  was  imperative  and  he 
must  go.  He  wrote  to  the  Elector  on  the  way:  "This  I  know  full  well 
about  myself:  if  matters  stood  so  at  Leipzig  as  at  Wittenberg,  I  would 
ride  thither,  though  for  nine  days  it  should  rain  only  Duke  Georges, 
and  each  one  were  ninefold  more  furious  than  this  one."  He  did  not 
wish  the  Elector  to  protect  him:  "I  go  to  Wittenberg  under  far  higher 
protection  than  that  of  the  Elector.  I  have  no  intention  of  demanding 
protection  from  your  Electoral  Grace.  Yea,  I  take  it  that  I  have  more 
power  to  protect  your  Electoral  Grace  than  you  to  protect  me." 

On  his  way  to  Wittenberg,  he  stopped  at  the  Black  Boar  tavern  at 
Jena,  where  the  room  in  which  he  ate  and  drank  is  still  shown  to  visitors. 
There  a  young  Swiss,  John  Kessler  by  name,  saw  him.  Kessler  was 
going  on  to  Wittenberg  ahead  of  him,  and  Luther  charged  him  with  a 
message  to  his  friend  Schurf.  "What  name  shall  I  give?"  asked  Kessler. 
" Simply  tell  him,"  Luther  replied,  "  '  He  that  is  to  come  salutes  you,'  "  ap- 
propriating to  himself  that  descriptive  phrase  which  had  been  used  only 
of  Christ.1 

It  is  difficult  to  interpret  these  things,  unless  on  the  hypothesis  that 
Luther  was  laboring  under  an  undue  exaltation  of  spirit,  a  kind  of  in- 
toxication of  faith.  It  is  only  thus  that  we  can  acquit  him  of  ingratitude, 
arrogance,  and  presumption  akin  to  blasphemy.  If  he  had  been  all  the 
time  at  Wittenberg,  there  is  no  knowing  how  far  he  would  have  been 
borne  along  by  the  influences  that  led  some  of  his  friends  into  such 
extravagances  as  they  committed.  Possibly  he  might  have  gone  with 
the  foremost,  or  at  least  not  have  known  what  to  do.  But  at  the  Wart- 
burg  he  was  out  of  the  current,  his  advance  was  more  natural,  and  the 
Wittenbergers  outstripped  him.  The  consequence  was  that  he  was  put 
in  an  attitude  first  of  resistance,  then  of  opposition.  He  saw  the  effects 
of  radicalism  from  afar,  and  when  feeling  but  little  the  impulses  by 
which  the  radicals  were  urged  on.  He  was  already  by  nature  a  conserva- 
tive, quick  to  see  wrong  principles,  but  slow  to  change  old  customs. 
He  became  more  conservative;  he  saw  more  clearly  the  necessity  of 
moving  cautiously.  This  conservatism  of  the  acknowledged  leader  of 
the  movement  was  the  condition  of  success.  Had  he  been  led  astray 
by  false  enthusiasm  it  is  certain  that  the  whole  affair  would  have  ended  in 
failure.  But  making  changes  slowly,  as  men  were  able  to  bear  them, 
accepting  what  had  already  been  done  in  the  right  direction,  and  look- 
ing to  other  and  more  important  changes,  he  kept  the  confidence  and 
sympathy  of  the  great  body  of  his  sober  and  earnest-hearted  followers, 
and  won  others  to  his  cause.  It  was  of  great  service  to  him  and  the 

1  For  a  pleasing  account  of  Luther's  personality  during  this  period,  see  the  story 
of  Kessler,  Sabbata,  1:  145-151;  tr.  in  Bib.  Sac.  for  Jan-  '99:  114-119-  also  in 
" Schonberg-Cotta  Family,"  ch.  18. 


190  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

Reformation  that  he  was  far  away  from  Wittenberg  for  a  time,  free 
from  misleading  influences,  and  not  compelled  to  act  at  the  crisis  of 
change.  What  he  did  when  he  returned  shows  how  necessary  he  was 
to  the  work  he  had  begun.  He  did  what  he  alone  could  do.  Partly  by 
his  wise  preaching,  partly  by  the  influence  of  his  commanding  per- 
sonality and  peculiar  position,  he  restored  order.  The  radical  leaders 
felt  and  yielded  to  his  power.  "Gabriel  is  changed  into  another  man," 
Luther  wrote;  Carlstadt  was  overawed,  and  the  prophets  left  the  city — 
the  threatened  danger  was  averted. 

Melanchthon  thought  Luther  alone  capable  of  judging  the  prophets, 
and  Luther  had  an  opportunity  to  judge  of  them.  After  a  time  they 
returned  to  Wittenberg,  and  he  saw  three  of  them.  He  calmly  listened 
to  Stiibner  as  he  told  his  story.  When  he  had  finished,  Luther  saw  that 
what  he  had  said  could  not  be  refuted:  reason  and  argument  had  nothing 
to  do  with  the  case.  He  replied,  that  these  were  either  the  vaporings 
of  an  excited  imagination,  or  the  wild  hurtful  suggestions  of  a  deceiving, 
lying  spirit.  Thereupon,  Cellarius,  greatly  excited,  stamping  with  his 
feet  and  striking  the  table  with  his  hands,  and  generally  with  violent 
gesticulation,  cried  out  that  Luther  had  dared  to  say  such  things  of  a 
divine  man.  Stiibner,  more  self-contained,  said,  "Luther,  that  you 
may  know  that  I  am  indued  with  the  Spirit  of  God,  I  will  tell  ypu  the 
thought  that  is  in  your  mind:  you  are  half  inclined  to  believe  that  my 
doctrine  is  true."  Luther  hastily  exclaimed,  "Get  thee  behind  me, 
Satan!"  The  prophet  had  exactly  divined  his  thought,  as  he  afterwards 
confessed,  but  without  convincing  him  that  the  divination  was  the  result 
of  inspiration,  unless  it  was  the  inspiration  of  the  Evil  One.  Having  no 
more  to  say,  Luther  dismissed  them,  and  they  went  out  threatening 
and  glorying.  Afterwards  they  sent  him  a  letter  full  of  execrations  and 
cursings.  He  was  puzzled.  It  was  easy  for  him  to  believe  that  the 
prophets  were  under  the  influence  of  a  supernatural  Power;  he  evidently 
did  believe  so  much.  The  only  real  question  in  his  mind  was  as  to  the 
nature  of  the  Power,  was  it  good  or  evil?  This  was  after  he  had  had 
time  to  think  the  matter  over  and  fortify  himself  against  surprises;  what 
would  he  have  done  if  he  had  been  in  Melanchthon's  place,  suddenly 
facing  a  new  difficulty,  trying  pretended  spirits?  Possibly  he  would 
have  done  just  as  he  did  later,  but  it  is  well  that  he  was  not  put  to  the  test. 

Rid  of  the  prophets,  it  was  a  more  delicate  thing  to  deal  with  Carl- 
stadt, so  long  his  colleague  in  the  university  and  one  of  his  earliest  helpers. 
The  little,  dark,  restless,  ambitious,  excitable  man  had  been  in  a  very 
trying  position.  Luther,  coming  later  to  the  university,  the  younger 
man,  had  not  so  much  overshadowed  him  as  thrust  him  aside.  He  had 
been  first,  or  at  least  the  equal  of  any.  Now  Luther  was  first,  even  the 


THE  NEW  LUTHER  191 

young  Melanchthon  was  before  him.  Accustomed  to  lead,  he  could 
not  contentedly  follow.  He  looked  critically  upon  what  Luther  did 
and  taught,  blamed  his  hesitation,  ridiculed  the  notion  that  doing  nothing 
themselves  they  ought  to  wait  for  God  to  act.  He  took  advantage  of  Lu- 
ther's absence  to  assert  himself  and  again  take  the  lead.  In  his  position 
of  acknowledged  preeminence,  Luther  could  afford  to  be  generous,  to 
sympathize  with  Carlstadt's  feelings  and  to  deal  tenderly  with  him. 
In -censuring  what  he  had  done,  Luther  did  not  mention  his  name,  but 
could  not  help  wounding  him.  He  wrote  (March  30th) :  "  I  have  offended 
Carlstadt  by  annulling  his  ordinances,  although  I  do  not  condemn  his 
doctrine,  except  that  he  has  busied  himself  hi  merely  external  things, 
to  the  neglect  of  true  Christian  doctrine,  that  is,  faith  and  charity. 
For  by  his  unwise  way  of  teaching  he  has  led  the  people  to  feel  that  the 
only  thing  they  have  to  do  to  be  Christians  is  to  communicate  in  both 
kinds,  take  the  bread  and  cup  in  their  hands,  neglect  confession  and 
break  images."  Carlstadt  could  not  well  remain  hi  Wittenberg.  He 
stayed  a  little  time  and  then  withdrew  to  a  village  near  by,  bought  a 
farm,  became  a  peasant  among  peasants.  However,  he  soon  tired  of 
his  farmer  life  and  took  up  again  his  teaching  at  the  university;  but  he 
was  hopelessly  out  of  sympathy  with  the  work  there,  and  again  left, 
this  time  to  become  pastor  at  Orlamund,  where  he  carried  on  his  schemes 
of  reform.  There  he  also  taught  his  new  theory  of  the  Lord's  Supper, 
that  the  body  of  Christ  is  not  literally  present  in  the  bread.  In  this  he 
anticipated  Zwingli  and  thus  early  began  one  of  the  many  divergent 
lines  of  Protestantism.  He  also  became,  but  not  consistently,  an 
opponent  of  infant  baptism,  which  has  led  some  to  class  him  with  the 
Anabaptists. 

Luther  was  much  offended  at  these  new  innovations  and  teachings.1 
He  followed  Carlstadt  to  his  new  home  and  preached  against  him. 
Carlstadt  offered  to  hold  a  public  disputation  on  the  questions  about 
which  they  disagreed,  at  Wittenberg  or  Erfurt,  and  Luther  consented, 
but  nothing  ever  came  of  the  agreement.  At  Orlamund  Luther  in- 
formed the  people  that  neither  the  university  nor  the  Elector  would 
consent  to  their  having  Carlstadt  as  their  pastor.  The  people  replied 
that  he  was  their  pastor,  that  they  had  chosen  him,  and  that  according 
to  Luther's  own  teaching  a  people  had  the  right  to  choose  their  own 
pastor.  When  Carlstadt  came  into  the  room  where  the  conference  was 

1  Luther  says  of  him,  in  a  report  to  Caspar  Giittel,  prior  of  the  Augustinians  at 
Eialeben,  March  30,  1522,  "His  ambition  is  to  set  up  as  a  new  doctor  on  his  own 
account,  and  to  establish  his  rule  and  system  on  the  ruin  of  my  authority."  This 
shows  exactly  where  the  shoe  pinched  Luther.  In  the  light  of  that  statement, 
no  one  can  doubt  that  jealousy  of  Carlstadt  actuated  his  entire  conduct  toward 
his  older  colleague,  from  the  time  of  his  return  to  Wittenberg.  De  Wefcte,  2:  177; 
Walch,  15:  2016.  Cf.  Tischreden,  No.  283. 


192  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

held,  Luther  ordered  him  to  leave;  Carlstadt  refusing,  he  ordered  his 
servant  to  make  ready  his  luggage  and  he  would  leave  himself — he 
would  not  stay  in  the  same  room  with  Carlstadt.  The  behavior  of  the 
two  men  was  hi  striking  contrast:  Carlstadt  was  courteous,  he  did  not 
forget  himself  or  the  occasion;  as  he  was  at  home  he  insisted  on  enter- 
taining Luther,  but  the  latter  refused  the  invitation  promptly  and  ab- 
ruptly. Luther's  whole  conduct  was  so  overbearing  and  insulting  that 
he  aroused  the  indignation  of  the  people,  and  he  was  finally  glad  to  get 
out  of  the  town  without  being  stoned.1  In  a  little  while  the  order  came 
for  the  banishment  of  Carlstadt  and  he  was  forced  to  leave  a  flock  ten- 
derly attached  to  him.  He  wrote  a  farewell  address  to  the  people,  signed 
tl Andrew  Bodenstein,  expelled  by  Luther,  unheard  and  unconvicted." 
When  the  address  was  read  the  people  heard  it  weeping. 

Banished  from  Orlamund  and  from  Saxony,  and  without  means  of 
support,  the  unfortunate  man  suffered  much  from  anxiety  and  much 
from  want.2  One  of  the  first  reformers,  he  was  the  first  to  feel  the 
bitterness,  not  of  papal,  but  of  Lutheran  intolerance.  At  last,  in  1531, 
he  found  a  home  among  the  Swiss,  and  ten  years  more  of  useful  life  in 
the  university  of  Basel.  When  he  broke  with  Luther,  or  when  Luther 
threw  him  over,  he  ceased  to  be  a  directing  force  in  the  new  movement, 
and  became  of  little  historic  interest.  He  could  no  longer  be  useful  at 
Wittenberg;  his  presence  there  would  have  occasioned  division,  and  divi- 
sion would  have  ruined  all.  We  sympathize  with  his  sufferings,  we  are 
indignant  at  Luther  for  his  intolerant  persecution  of  the  man  who  had 
dared  to  differ  from  him,  as  he  had  himself  dared  to  differ  from  the 
Pope,  and  yet  we  can  hardly  see  how  the  result  could  have  been  otherwise. 
It  was  one  of  those  cases  where  the  innocent  must  suffer  for  the  high 
crime  and  misdemeanor  of  being  in  advance  of  his  contemporaries;  the 
truth  must  wait;  the  time  was  not  ripe.  One  who  saw  Carlstadt  in  his 
disputation  with  Eck  at  Leipzig  said  of  him  that  he  had  the  same  qualities 
that  were  found  in  Luther,  only  less.  He  was  a  learned,  candid,  un- 
selfish, brave  man,  and  an  enthusiast  for  the  new  light.  At  the  time 
of  his  death  in  1541,  he  was  professor  of  theology  at  Basel.3 

1  For  the  account  of  Luther's  interview  with  Carlstadt,  see  Walch,  15:  2029 
and  2039.    Luther  afterwards  caused  the  reporter,  Martin  Reinhard,  to  be  turned 
out  of  his  living  at  Jena,  on  the  ground  that  the  record  was  too  favorable  to  Carl- 
stadt.   See  also  Luther  to  Spalatin,  October  30th;  Walch,  15:  2626. 

2  In  1525  Carlstadt  was  badly  off.     June  26th  of  that  year  Melanchthon  wrote: 
"Carlstadt  has  written  here  pleading  letters.     It  will  be  our  business  lovingly  to 
help  him.     His  wife,  I  suppose,  will  come  to  the  city  to-morrow,  for  we  invited 
her  yesterday,  and  we  will  strive  with  the  greatest  faith  and  diligence  that  she  may 
not  want  for  anything." — CR,  1:  751. 

3  Barge's  very  thorough  and  scholarly  biography  (Andreas  Bodenstein  non  Carl- 
stadt, 2  vols.  Leipzig,  1905)  vindicates  his  character  from  the  aspersions  of  Luther 
and  the  Lutherans,  and  shows  him  in  his  true  light  as  the  most  logical  and  scrip- 
tural of  the  Wittenberg  group. 


THE  NEW  LUTHER  193 

In  these  first  weeks  at  Wittenberg  after  his  return,  we  see  Luther 
at  his  best  and  at  his  worst.  His  eloquence,  his  zeal,  his  capacity  for 
leadership,  were  never  more  clearly  in  evidence.  There  was  none  that 
could  match  him  "in  sovereign  sway  and  masterdom."  But  what  has 
become  of  the  diffident  monk,  who  consented  to  leave  the  shelter  of  the 
cloister  only  at  the  imperious  command  of  his  general;  who  was  so  bur- 
dened by  the  sense  of  his  ignorance  that  he  declared  himself  unworthy 
to  be  a  doctor  of  theology;  who  was  so  conscious  of  his  spiritual  weakness 
that  he  thought  he  could  not  live  a  year  as  the  religious  guide  of  the 
people  of  Wittenberg?  He  has  utterly  disappeared,  and  his  place  has 
been  taken  by  a  man  of  overweening  self-sufficiency,  arrogant,  intolerant 
of  advice,  opposition  or  rivalry,  a  born  leader  of  men  it  is  true,  but  also 
quite  determined  henceforth  to  lead.  He  has  tasted  of  the  sweets  of 
power,  and 

increase  of  appetite  had  grown 
By  what  it  fed  on. 

He  has  drunk  the  new  wine  of  popular  applause,  and  the  heady  bev- 
erage has  intoxicated,  him,  and  given  him  an  insatiable  craving  for  still 
deeper  draughts.  A  new  Luther  indeed! 


CHAPTER  II 

A  NEW  POPE  AND   AN  OLD   GKIEVANCE 

LUTHER'S  exigencies,  in  his  contention  with  the  Pope,  had  forced 
him  into  an  apparent  radicalism  that  was  not  the  real  voice  of  his  nature, 
and  could  not  be  his  permanent  course.  He  had  uttered  sweeping  opin- 
ions in  favor  of  freedom  of  conscience,  liberty  of  private  judgment,  the 
sole  authority  of  Scripture,  and  the  priesthood  of  all  believers — opinions 
that  contained  logical  implications  of  which  he  was  at  the  time  uncon- 
scious, and  that  he  rejected  as  soon  as  others,  more  logical  than  he, 
attempted  to  realize  them.  He  was  by  temperament  a  conservative, 
and  after  he  had  finally  broken  with  the  Papacy  and  become  the  head 
of  an  openly  schismatic  party,  his  native  conservatism  at  once  began  to 
assert  itself.  His  policy  at  Wittenberg  after  his  return  expresses  the  real 
Luther  better  than  much  of  his  earlier  writing. 

Elector  Frederick  had  strongly  opposed  the  return  of  Luther,  and 
feared  that  he  might  be  much  embarrassed  by  this  reappearance  and  re- 
newed activity.  But  he  might  have  spared  himself  considerable  anxiety; 
as  events  turned  out,  the  Emperor  and  the  Pope  were  much  too  busy 
elsewhere  to  devote  considerable  attention  just  then  to  affairs  in  Germany. 
And  it  may  be  shrewdly  suspected  that  they  preferred  Luther  and  his 
conservatism  to  Carlstadt  and  his  radicalism,  and  did  not  greatly  desire 
Luther's  removal  from  the  control  of  affairs  at  that  particular  juncture. 
It  is  clear  to  us  now,  and  was  becoming  clear  to  them  then,  that  had 
Luther  been  put  to  death  at  Worms  there  would  have  been  a  much  more 
radical  revolt  in  Germany  than  anything  that  he  desired  or  was  ready 
to  tolerate.  Forces  had  been  set  at  work  that  no  other  could  control. 
Could  Luther  himself  guide  the  spirit  that  he  had  raised?  A  revolution 
was  threatened;  what  would  that  revolution'  accomplish? 

In  every  country  in  Europe,  Church  and  State  were  closely  united. 
They  were  looked  upon  as  a  sort  of  Siamese  twins,  whose  separation 
would  be  the  death  of  both.  The  Church  in  each  State  was  a  part  of  the 
Church  universal,  a  great  undivided  and  indivisible  whole,  over  which 
was  the  Pope  as  its  representative  and  head.  Its  relations  to  the  Pope 
were  like  those  of  the  Empire  to  the  Emperor,  except  that  they  were 
closer,  more  real,  and  supposed  to  be  more  vital.  The  new  movement 
in  the  Church  was  following  the  political  movement  in  Europe;  it  was 
in  the  direction  of  national  growth,  and  the  strengthening  of  the  national 

194 


A  NEW  POPE  AND  AN  OLD  GRIEVANCE  195 

spirit.  No  one  thought  of  breaking  the  connection  of  Church  and  State; 
no  one,  at  least,  except  a  few  who  were  regarded  as  impractical  and  danger- 
ous fanatics.  It  was  the  position  of  the  Pope  as  the  head  of  the  visible 
Church  that  was  threatened.  It  was  a  movement  for  the  overthrow  of' 
a  power  that  had  outlived  its  usefulness,  and  which,  in  its  efforts  to 
preserve  its  influence,  had  usurped  new  functions,  made  new  exactions, 
and  thrown  itself  athwart  the  course  of  a  normal  and  necessary  de/ 
velopment.  *-^C 

The  state  of  things  in  Germany  was  favorable  to  such  a  movement.! 
The  Popes,  in  their  dealings  with  the  German  Church,  had  abused  their 
power,  and  had  thus  weakened  their  hold  on  the  German  people.  Be- 
sides, they  had  come  to  be  recognized  as  the  representatives  of  Italian 
unity,  and  naturally  their  claims  of  tribute  and  tithes  seemed  like  the 
laying  of  a  tax  on  Germans  for  the  benefit  of  Italians.  This  tax  was 
paid  with  reluctance,  often  with  a  sense  of  humiliation. 

But  what  could  be  done?  There  could  be  no  simultaneous  uprising^ 
of  all  Germany  against  the  Papacy.  It  so  happened,  however,  that  the 
friends  of  reform  were  unequally  distributed.  In  some  sections  there 
were  few;  in  others  they  were  almost  the  entire  population.  This  fact 
was  important,  for  Germany  was  rather  a  confederation  than  a  solid 
kingdom;  and  each  State  might  decide  for  itself  what  position  it  would 
take  toward  Luther  and  the  Pope.  If,  for  example,  the  Elector  of  Saxony 
should  decide  to  defy  the  Pope,  he  could  do  so;  he  was  almost  supreme 
in  his  own  dominions.  He  might,  upon  occasion,  resist  even  a  decree 
of  the  Empire.  The  idea  of  imperial  unity  had,  indeed,  been  growing, 
but  the  old  feudal  notion  that  no  prince  was  bound  except  by  his  own 
word,  still  held  over.  A  majority  of  the  imperial  Diet  might  be  against 
him,  but  nevertheless  he  was  his  own  man  and  might  not  choose  to  sub- 
mit, except  to  force.  In  that  case,  the  States  that  had  voted  against 
him  must  make  war  upon  him.  In  the  first  instance,  then,  the  question 
of  enforcing  the  ban  against  Luther  was  referred  to  the  ruler  of  the 
State  in  which  he  was  found.  If  he  did  not  enforce  it,  the  question  might 
be  brought  before  the  Diet.  If  the  Diet  did  not  enforce  it,  the  Emperor 
was  to  act,  but  he  must  act  through  the  Diet.  His  influence  in  the 
Diet,  however,  was  great.  It  was  the  influence  of  a  powerful  ruler, 
who,  in  virtue  of  his  position,  might  reward  his  friends  and  crush  his 
opponents.  In  a  nearly  evenly  divided  Diet,  it  was  not  difficult  for  him 
to  command  a  majority;  and  therefore,  in  Germany,  divided  into  two 
strong  parties,  one  for  and  one  against  the  Pope,  the  fate  of  Luther  was 
virtually  in  the  hands  of  the  Emperor.  But  powerful  as  he  was,  such  was 
his  position  in  relation  to  other  powers  and  to  his  own  States,  that  he  had 
to  regulate  his  conduct  by  changing  circumstances.  In  the  last  resort, 


196  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

he  alone  could  execute  the  ban,  but  he  could  do  it  only  when  he  was  at 
peace  with  his  neighbors*  He  would  not  dare  to  make  war  upon  a  party 
in  Germany  while  he  was  engaged  in  a  foreign  war;  and  he  would  not 
be  willing  to  fight  the  Pope's  battle  unless  the  Pope  was  in  sympathy 
with  him;  and  the  Pope  might  be  against  him — in  alliance,  it  may  be, 
with  his  enemies. 

This  position  of  the  Emperor  determined  the  development  of  the 
Lutheran  movement  on  the  political  side.  If  we  know  how  the  Emperor 
was  situated  at  any  given  time  with  reference  to  the  Pope  and  other 
rulers,  we  know  how  he  was  shaping  his  policy  toward  the  reform  and 
the  reformers.  If  he  was  at  war  with  France,  or  with  the  Turks,  or  at 
outs  with  the  Pope,  Luther's  party  had  peace.  If  he  was  at  peace  with 
other  powers  and  .the  Pope,  then  we  know  that  the  Lutherans  were  in 
danger.  His  natural  position  toward  them  was  one  of  repression,  and 
he  was  always  moving  against  them  unless  there  was  something  to  hold 
him  back. 

The  forces  that  might  be  against  the  Emperor  were  few,  and  the  re- 
lations of  parties  to  each  other  are  easily  understood.  Europe  was  di- 
vided between  four  great  powers:  first  the  Empire,  including  Spain  and 
her  dependencies  belonging  to  the  Emperor;  second  France,  third  Eng- 
land, fourth  Italy,  including  the  papal  States.  We  should,  perhaps, 
include  as  a  fifth  European  power  the  Turks,  with  their  seat  at  Con- 
stantinople. The  principal  sovereigns  of  Europe  were  men  of  exceptional 
ability.  They  all  came  to  the  throne  young,  and  all  reigned  a  long  time. 
The  eldest  of  them  was  Henry  VIII  (1509-1546);  the  next  was  Francis  I 
(1515-1547);  after  him  came  Charles  V  (1519-1555);  and  then  Suleiman 
II,  head  of  the  Ottoman  Empire  (1520-1566).  In  the  great  European 
struggle  Henry  VIII  was  probably  the  least  important.  A  great  figure 
in  his  own  kingdom,  on  the  Continent  he  appeared  several  times  in  a 
subordinate,  never  in  a  principal,  part.  He  did  not  even  hold,  as  he 
claimed  to  do,  the  balance  of  power  between  the  two  principal  rivals. 
Suleiman  II  was  always  a  menace,  and  at  times  exerted  a  directing  in- 
fluence on  the  course  of  events. 

In  the  beginning  the  contest  was  between  the  Emperor  and  Francis  I. 
There  was  only  six  years'  difference  in  their  ages,  but  at  that  time,  when 
as  much  as  at  any  time  in  history  men  were  early  distinguished,  six 
years  counted  for  much.  Charles  V  at  twenty-one  was  comparatively 
a  novice,  and  Francis  at  twenty-seven  was  already  a  veteran.  In  com- 
paring the  two  at  the  time  of  the  election  of  Emperor,  the  Archbishop 
of  Trier  spoke  of  the  one  as  a  youth,  of  the  other  as  "a  great  com- 
mander," a  soldier  "whose  valor  was  already  known  and  tried."  Both 
had  been  educated  in  reference  to  their  station;  but  the  French  king 


A  NEW  POPE  AND  AN  OLD  GRIEVANCE  197 

was  a  man  of  more  culture  than  the  Emperor;  he  wished  to  be  con- 
sidered a  patron  of  learning,  a  representative  of  the  Renaissance.  In 
natural  qualities  they  were  different:  Charles  was  slow,  plodding,  cautious; 
he  formed  his  plans  with  deliberation  and  worked  them  out  with  patient 
tenacity  of  purpose.  He  cared  more  for  success  than  for  fame,  and 
hence  only  planned  campaigns  and  trusted  others  to  command  his 
armies.  He  was  more  of  a  statesman  than  a  soldier — a  characterization, 
however,  that  applies  more  to  the  beginning  than  to  the  middle  and 
end  of  his  career.  Francis,  on  the  other  hand,  was  a  soldier  from  the  first; 
he  coveted  military  distinction,  and  preferred  to  lead  his  armies  in 
person.  He  knew  how  to  plan,  but  he  lacked  steadiness  and  efficiency 
in  execution— he  usually  began  well  and  ended  badly.  In  the  long  run, 
Charles  was  nearly  always  successful;  in  the  long  run  Francis  nearly  always 
failed.  In  that  active,  transitional  period,  occasion  for  war  between  two 
such  rulers  and  rivals  could  not  long  be  wanting — if  there  had  been  no 
differences,  they  would  have  found  or  made  them.  But  there  were 
differences:  they  inherited  conflicting  claims,  and  Italy  was  to  be  the 
scene  of  much  of  the  contest  between  them. 

The  presence  of  contending  foreign  powers  in  Italy  made  the  Pope's 
position  one  of  delicacy  and  difficulty.  Italy  had  no  natural  political 
head,  no  great  central,  national  interest  that  might  diminish  or  keep 
in  check  local  rivalries  and  jealousies.  State  was  divided  against  State, 
faction  against  faction.  These  antagonisms  were  fostered  and  intensified 
by  foreign  influence:  there  was  a  French  interest,  and  a  Spanish  or 
Imperial  interest,  and  this  must  continue  as  long  as  French  and  Spanish 
had  conflicting  claims  in  Italy.  There  could  be  no  peace,  much  less 
could  there  be  a  genuine  national  sentiment.  The  Pope,  as  an  Italian 
prince,  might  be  tempted  to  make  interest  for  himself  or  his  family 
by  favoring  now  one,  now  the  other  of  the  great  rivals.  He  did  not 
always  successfully  resist  the  temptation.  But  at  times  he  rose  above 
any  personal  motives,  and  as  a  patriot  chafed  at  the  presence  of  a  dis- 
turbing influence  hi  his  country.  He  could  not  be  pleased  that  either 
Francis  or  Charles  should  have  permanent  possessions;  and,  for  that 
reason,  whichever  one  was  successful,  he  might  be  expected  after  a 
while  to  favor  the  other.  He  could  not  be  neutral:  the  interests  of  the 
States  of  the  Church,  of  which  he  was  ruler,  were  often  at  stake;  and 
even  if  his  possessions,  as  the  greatest  Italian  power,  had  imposed  on 
him  no  responsibility,  he  must  yet  take  part  in  the  struggles  going  on 
about  him.  He  had,  or  seemed  to  have,  no  choice  in  the  matter,  except 
of  the  party  with  which  he  would  act;  and  his  political  interests  and  his 
duties  as  Pope  did  not  always  coincide — the  Pope  as  Italian  prince 
was  sometimes  hi  opposition  to  the  Pope  as  head  of  the  Church.  This 


198  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

opposition  of  interests,  the  result  of  natural  and  unforeseen  develop- 
ments, was  a  chief  cause  of  the  Pope's  weakness.  If  the  situation  of 
Italy  had  been  different,  or  if,  as  in  former  times,  the  Pope  had  been 
simply  the  head  of  the  Church,  the  course  of  general  history  might  have 
been  different. 

The  interference  of  Francis  I  in  Italy  began  with  his  accession  to  the 
throne;  to  his  title  as  King  of  France  he  added  that  of  Duke  of  Milan, 
and  immediately  proceeded  to  make  it  good.  The  Emperor  Maximilian, 
Ferdinand  of  Spain,  Florence  and  Milan,  a  strong  force  of  Swiss  and  finally 
the  Pope,  joined  together  to  oppose  him.  On  his  part  he  had  the  active 
aid  of  Venice  and  Genoa,  and  of  hired  troops,  many  of  them  Germans. 
If  the  allies  had  acted  together  and  with  vigor  he  must  have  been  de- 
feated, but  as  no  one  of  them  had  any  definite  and  certain  interest  hi 
the  matter  their  movements  were  hesitating,  slow  and  without  concert. 
While  they  were  expecting  him  to  cross  the  Alps  at  one  place  he  crossed 
at  another  supposed  to  be  impassable,  and  entered  Italy  with  an  army 
the  like  of  which  for  discipline  and  equipment  that  age  had  not  seen. 
To  meet  this  army  only  the  Swiss  were  in  position,  and  for  a  time  it  was 
not  certain  that  they  would  not  make  a  separate  treaty  with  the  French 
and  return  home  without  a  battle.  The  attempts  at  negotiation  failing 
left  the  Swiss  divided,  and  a  part  of  them  withdrew  from  the  field,  leav- 
ing, however,  a  force  of  thirty-five  thousand  resolute  men  to  stand  between 
Francis  and  Milan.  The  battle  was  joined  at  Marignano,  September  13, 
1515,  and  after  a  stubborn  conflict  the  Swiss  were  defeated  and  Milan 
became  a  French  possession. 

This  victory  of  the  French  made  the  Pope's  situation  alarming,  since 
there  was  now  no  force  adequate  to  meet  Francis,  and  the  extent  of  his 
conquests  apparently  depended  entirely  on  his  will.  The  Pope  deter- 
mined at  once  to  come  to  an  understanding  with  him;  they  could  be 
of  mutual  service.  The  King  had  the  advantage  of  position,  and  his 
conditions  could  not  be  called  easy:  he  insisted  on  having  Parma  and 
Piacenza,  as  naturally  connected  with  Milan.  In  return  for  these  pos- 
sessions of  the  Pope,  he  would  take  Florence  and  the  Medici  under  his 
protection,  and  would  require  Milan  to  purchase  salt  from  the  States 
of  the  Church.  In  a  personal  interview  between  Francis  and  Leo  at 
Bologna,  it  was  further  arranged  that  the  Pragmatic  Sanction,  which 
for  nearly  a  hundred  years  had  protected  the  French  clergy  from  the 
domination  of  the  Pope,  should  be  abolished.  In  return,  the  Pope  con- 
ceded that  the  King  should  have  the  right  to  nominate  to  all  ecclesi- 
astical benefices,  and  to  decide  ecclesiastical  questions,  some  few  ex- 
cepted,  without  appeal  to  Rome.  The  annates,  or  first  year's  income 
of  every  see  on  the  appointment  of  a  new  bishop,  were  to  go  to  the  Pope. 


A  NEW  POPE  AND  AN  OLD  GRIEVANCE  199 

Pope  and  King  thus  divided  between  them  the  rights  of  the  French 
clergy.1 

The  treaty  thus  made  gave  a  few  years  of  peace  to  Italy.  Francis  held 
possession  of  all  that  he  had  acquired,  and  Leo  had  leisure  to  patronize 
literature  and  art.  It  was  evident,  however,  that  the  Papacy  would  not 
rest  content  until  at  least  Parma  and  Piacenza  had  been  regained,  if  in- 
deed it  did  not  join  in  an  attempt  to  drive  the  French  out  of  Italy.  The 
election  of  Charles  V  as  Emperor  suggested  an  alliance  with  him  as  the 
coming  man  in  Europe,  and  a  treaty  was  concluded  between  Leo  and 
Charles  May  8,  1521.  It  is  probably  more  than  a  mere  coincidence 
that  this  is  the  date  given  by  the  Emperor  to  the  Edict  of  Worms  against 
Luther,  and  the  edict  was  no  doubt  prepared  on  that  day,  though  not 
actually  issued  until  May  26th.  Leo  did  not  live,  however,  to  witness  the 
success  of  Charles  and  the  driving  of  the  French  out  of  Italy.  The  de- 
cisive defeat  of  Pavia  was  yet  four  years  distant  when  Leo  suddenly 
died,  December  1,  1521,  under  circumstances  that  gave  rise  to  a  strong 
suspicion  of  poison,  which  is  strengthened  by  the  fact  that  there  had 
been  an  unsuccessful  attempt  against  his  life  before,  for  which  several 
men  in  high  position,  among  them  a  cardinal,  were  executed.2  Another 
account  attributes  Leo's  death  to  a  cold  caught  in  witnessing  the  cele- 
bration of  the  recent  victory  over  the  French.  The  Pope  had  doubted 
whether,  as  it  was  a  victory  of  Christians  over  Christians,  public  re- 
joicings would  be  quite  proper,  and  referred  the  case  to  his  Master  of 
Ceremonies,  who  replied  that  rejoicings  would  not  be  proper,  unless  the 
Pope  felt  that  the  Church  had  received  some  notable  benefit  from  the 
victory.  This  punctilious  regard  to  a  matter  of  form  fills  out  the  picture 
of  the  tunes.  A  neglect  of  the  highest  moral  considerations  is  fitly  joined 
to  a  slavish  observance  of  etiquette.  When  society  is  wanting  in  noble 
impulses  it  makes  compensation  by  assiduous  devotion  to  trifles. 

At  the  time  of  his  death  Leo  lacked  ten  days  of  completing  his  forty- 
sixth  year.  He  had  been  Pope  eight  years,  eight  months  and  nineteen 
days.  Circumstances  had  lifted  him  into  a  position  of  the  greatest 
prominence.  Few  men  of  his  time  are  oftener  in  men's  thoughts,  few 
names  of  the  distant  past  are  oftener  on  men's  lips.  His  time  has  been 
named  for  him;  "the  age  of  Leo  X"  is  celebrated  as  the  golden  period 
of  literature,  of  art,  of  music — all  that  gives  splendor  to  the  Renaissance. 

1  This  Concordat,  in  forty-eight  articles,  was  ratified  by  the  fifth  Lateran  coun- 
cil in  December,  1516.  The  full  text  is  in  Mansi,  32:  1015-1046. 

*Roscoe,  "Leo  X,"  2:  69-76.  The  conspiracy  was  provoked  by  the  injustice 
of  the  Pope.  Cardinal  Petrucci,  who  was  executed,  went  to  Rome  under  a  safe- 
conduct  from  the  Pope,  which  was  immediately  violated.  One  of  the  cardinals 
who  was  condemned  and  then  pardoned,  died  shortly  afterwards,  suspected  of 
being  poisoned  by  the  Pope.  Two  cardinals  who  confessed  their  guilt  were  let 
off  with  a  fine  of  25,000  ducats.  The  fact  that  so  great  an  offense  could  be  pardoned, 
or  punished  with  only  a  fine,  itself  tells  a  tale. 


200  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

It  may  be  a  question  whether  Leo  was  more  helpful  to  learning  than 
some  of  the  Popes  who  preceded  him  and  some  who  followed.  Learning 
and  art  flourished  before  he  came  to  the  papal  throne  and  after  his 
death.  It  is  enough  to  say  that  he  was  a  great,  possibly  the  greatest 
patron  of  learning  in  his  time,  but  he  was  only  one  among  many.  He 
was  himself  a  man  of  culture,  speaking  Latin  fluently  and  elegantly,, 
knowing  Greek  moderately  well;  a  student  of  music,  both  as  an  art  and 
as  a  science;  a  ready  and  agreeable  speaker;  a  poet  in  a  small  way;  a  stu- 
dent of  literature  and  of  history,  but  much  better  acquainted  with 
secular  than  with  theological  learning.1  He  was  fond  of  hawking  and 
hunting  and  fishing,  and  when  engaged  in  these  sports  sometimes  scan- 
dalized his  Master  of  Ceremonies  by  his  neglect  of  the  proprieties,  es- 
pecially in  the  matter  of  dress.  He  loved  cards  and  chess,  but  condemned 
dice.  He  sought  to  give  dignity  and  elegance  to  public  worship;  he  did 
not  like  long  sermons.2  In  his  expenditures,  especially  in  his  gifts,  he 
was  liberal.  He  loved  to  be  amused,  to  laugh,  and  sometimes  de- 
scended to  coarse  practical  jokes.3  In  his  political  methods  he  was  un- 
scrupulous, not  hesitating  to  use  deception  and  artifice,  and  even  to 
violate  his  word  and  the  public  faith  to  accomplish  his  purposes.  The 
story  is  told  that  he  once  said,  "All  ages  can  testify  how  profitable  that 
fable  of  Christ  has  been  to  us  and  our  company."  It  is  true  the  story 
rests  on  a  single  doubtful  authority,  but  the  fact  that  the  story  was  told 
of  him  and  found  ready  credence  is  itself  significant.  But  withal  he 
was  a  man  of  ability,  much  above  the  average  of  Popes.  That  he  did  not 
realize  the  gravity  of  the  contest  with  Luther  was  not  wholly  his  fault; 
that  he  did  not  suppress  the  Lutheran  movement  in  its  early  stages  is 
still  less  his  fault.  As  an  Italian  prince,  little  could  be  said  against  him; 
as  Pope  his  character  and  conduct  go  far  toward  explaining  and  jus- 
tifying the  revolt  against  the  Papacy.  He  lacked  scarcely  any  gift  or 
accomplishment  that  a  good  secular  ruler  ought  to  have,  and  was  almost 
everything  that  a  Pope  ought  not  to  be.  His  sudden  death,  without  the 
last  rites  of  the  Church,  was  held  against  him,  even  by  many  Catholics, 
as  a  sort  of  judgment  on  him.  The  cultivators  of  literature  mourned 
his  loss;  the  populace  cared  little  for  him. 

1  Sarpi  and  Pallavicini  agree  that  he  was  more  learned  in  other  things  than  in 
theology.     Sarpi  says,   after  enumerating  his  many  virtues:   "He  would  have 
been  a  Pope  absolutely  complete,  if  with  these  he  had  joined  some  knowledge  of 
things  that  concern  religion,  and  some  more  propension  unto  piety,  of  both  which 
he  seemed  careless."    Hist.  Council  of  Trent,  bk.  1,  The  testimony  of  Pallavicini 
is  in  Roscoe,  2:  383,  384. 

2  In  the  year  1514  he  ordered  the  Master  of  the  Palace,  on  pain  of  excommuni- 
cation, to  see  that  the  sermon  did  not  exceed  half  an  hour;  and  in  the  month  of 
November,  1517,  being  wearied  with  a  long  discourse,  he  directed  his  Master  of 
Ceremonies  to  remind  the  Master  of  the  Palace  that  the  council  of  the  Lateran 
should  not  exceed  a  quarter  of  an  hour,  at  most."     Roscoe,  2:  508. 

3  Roscoe,  2:  399. 


A  NEW  POPE  AND  AN  OLD  GRIEVANCE  201 

The  cardinals  present  in  the  conclave  found  it  impossible  to  choose 
one  of  their  own  number,  and  their  choice  fell  on  Adrian,  the  Cardinal 
Bishop  of  Tortosa,  who  chose  to  become  Pope  under  his  own  name,  and 
is  known  as  Adrian  VI.  He  was  of  humble  birth,  a  native  of  Utrecht, 
who  had  risen  solely  by  his  own  piety  and  worth,  and  at  the  time  of  his 
election  held  the  highest  and  most  responsible  position  at  the  Spanish 
court,  being  Regent  in  the  Emperor's  absence.  He  is  supposed  to  have 
owed  his  election  largely  to  the  influence  of  Charles  V,  who  admired  and 
trusted  him  greatly.  He  was  a  learned  man,  of  simple  studious  habits, 
deeply  read  in  the  scholastic  theology,  well  advanced  in  age,  conservative, 
of  strong  moral  convictions  but  with  little  practical  experience  or  wisdom. 
It  was  said  of  him  as  Cicero  said  of  Cato  that  he  was  not  a  practical 
politician.1  As  he  had  not  mingled  much  with  men  he  was  distrustful 
and  hesitating,  and  had  few  intimates.  It  was  said  of  him:  "He  is  a 
man  tenacious  of  his  own  and  very  careful  what  he  gives,  rarely  or  never 
receiving.  He  daily  performs  early  mass.  Whom  he  loves,  or  whether  he 
loves  anyone,  no  one  has  ever  found  out.  He  is  not  moved  by  anger  nor 
relaxed  by  jokes."  ;His  elevation  to  the  Papacy  awakened  in  him  no 
pride;  on  the  contrary  he  groaned  when  the  news  was  brought  to  him.2 
Everything  conspired  to  make  his  position  difficult.  He  was  a  stranger 
in  Rome;  he  came  having  many  offices  to  bestow;  the  expectations  of 
place-hunters  were  high;  and  he  was  cautious  in  the  distribution  of  his 
favors.  He  became  unpopular;  did  not  understand  the  situation;  and 
keenly  felt  how  sadly  he  and  the  times  failed  to  agree.3  The  Church 
was  corrupt;  the  Turks  were  invading  Hungary  and  besieging  Rhodes. 
Christendom  was  in  danger  from  without,  and  the  Lutherans  were 
giving  great  trouble  within. 

Adrian's  inexperience  and  helplessness  made  him  an  important  factor 
in  the  new  movement.  He  was  sincerely  anxious  to  reform  the  abuses 
of  the  Church,  but  when  he  began  to  take  matters  in  hand  he  found 
how  very  difficult  it  was.  There  is  little  doubt  that  he  came  to  Rome 
honestly  desirous  to  cleanse  the  Augean  stable  of  the  Papacy,  indeed, 
fully  determined  to  do  so;  but  when  he  attempted  to  suppress  useless 
and  costly  offices  he  found  that  their  holders  had  acquired  by  purchase 
what  they  protested  was  a  vested  right  to  them,  and  that  to  abolish  an 
office  would  often  be  to  reduce  to  poverty  one  who  had  invested  in  it 
his  entire  capital.  Reservations  and  other  abuses  that  had  provoked  so 
great  criticism  were  similarly  hedged  about;  when  he  proposed  to  inter- 

1  "With  the  very  best  intentions  and  the  loftiest  integrity,  he  sometimes  injures 
the  State;  for  he  speaks  as  if  he  were  in  the  republic  of  Plato,  and  not  dealing  with 
the  Roman  rabble."    Letters  to  Athens,  June,  90  B.  C. 

2  Ranke,  1 :  69. 

8  76.,  1:  74.  He  once  said,  "How  much  depends  on  the  times  in  which  even  the 
best  men  are  cast." 


202  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

fere  with  such  practices,  the  very  princes  who  had  protested  again  offered 
opposition,  because  they  found  their  own  patronage  likely  to  be  unduly 
circumscribed  by  the  reform.  Adrian  was  a  scholastic  theologian,  a 
thorough  believer  in  its  methods,  and  from  his  point  of  view  all  that  Luther 
taught  seemed  easy  of  refutation.  He  had  himself  written  on  indulgences, 
and  had  made  the  subject  as  simple  and  comprehensive  as  possible.  He 
had  taught  that  as  indulgences  are  given  in  consideration  of  good  works, 
and  as  good  works  are  never  perfectly  performed  by  all,  indulgences  avail 
only  in  proportion  to  the  completeness  and  sincerity  with  which  the  good 
works  are  done:  a  little  good  works,  a  little  pardon;  complete  good  works, 
complete  pardon.  So  taught,  indulgences  would  not  encourage  idleness 
and  occasion  scandal.  He  mentioned  the  matter  to  Cajetan,  and  pro- 
posed to  issue  a  bull  giving  his  views,  which,  he  thought,  would  settle  all 
dispute.  Cajetan  advised  him  not  to  publish  such  a  bull;  he  himself  had 
studied  the  subject,  and  had  had  two  interviews  with  Luther,  in  which 
he  had  heard  what  Luther  had  to  say.  In  his  opinion  the  less  said  about 
indulgences  the  better.  Whatever  the  Popes  might  say  about  them, 
he  was  convinced  from  a  study  of  the  Decretals  "that  indulgence  is  only 
an  absolution  from  penance  imposed  in  confession."  He  thought  it  would 
be  better  not  to  relax  that  penance,  but  to  exact  it  strictly.  When  people 
should  find  themselves  required  to  undergo  a  real  penance  they  would  see 
the  advantage  of  indulgences;  the  golden  age  of  the  Church  would  return, 
the  priest's  authority  would  be  reestablished  and  all  would  be  well. 

The  advice  pleased  the  Pope,  but  the  very  first  man  to  whom  he 
mentioned  it  reminded  him  that  the  times  were  changed;  that  the  people 
would  not  now  endure  the  ancient  discipline;  that  canonical  punishments 
were  out  of  date.  The  remedy  indeed  was  suited  to  the  disease,  but  the 
patient  was  too  weak  to  bear  it — it  would  kill  rather  than  cure.  The  best 
thing  would  be  not  to  say  anything  at  all  about  the  matter:  "This  matter, 
in  these  times,  requireth  silence,  rather  than  further  discussion."  * 

This  opinion,  too,  very  much  struck  the  Pope,  and  passing  by  indul- 
gences for  the  time  he  turned  his  attention  to  other  things.  Among  these 
the  question  of  marriage  was  very  important.  The  papal  law  created 
impediments  to  the  marriage  of  persons  within  certain  degrees  of  re- 
lationship, natural  or  spiritual.  It  was  often  desirable  to  remove  these 
impediments,  which  was  done  by  dispensations,  for  which,  of  course, 
payment  was  to  be  made.  The  marriage  law  might  well  have  been  relieved 
of  some  of  its  restrictions,  and  Adrian  wished  to  give  the  needed  relief. 
But  to  do  so  was,  it  was  said,  to  weaken  the  sinews  of  discipline;  not  to 
do  so  gave  the  Lutherans  the  opportunity  to  say  that  the  restrictions 
were  kept  up,  because  to  remove  them  would  destroy  the  profitable 
1  Saxpi,  pp.  19-21. 


A  NEW  POPE  AND  AN  OLD  GRIEVANCE  203 

trade  in  dispensations.  If,  as  was  suggested,  relief  should  be  given  to 
persons  of  quality,  who  most  needed  it,  men  would  say  that  the  Church 
in  whose  eyes  all  are  equal,  was  legislating  only  for  the  benefit  of  the 
rich  and  noble.  Besides,  certain  offices  derived  their  revenues  from 
this  sale  of  dispensations;  these  offices  had  been  sold,  and  to  change  the 
marriage  laws  would  be  to  defraud  the  buyers.  The  offices  might  be 
bought  back,  but  that  would  involve  a  great  outlay  of  money. 

The  case  of  marriage  was  one  of  many.  Hurtful  customs  had  crept  in, 
and  had  become  part  of  a  great,  wiqie-reaching  system.  To  change  them 
was  beset  with  difficulties.  The  correction  of  any  evil  would  inflict  a 
wrong  scarcely  less  than  the  wrong  redressed.  There  were  many  reasons 
why  the  Pope  should  act,  and  many  why  he  should  not  act;  whatever 
he  might  do  the  Church  would  suffer,  and  it  would  suffer  if  he  did  nothing. 
In  his  perplexity  he  turned  from  one  to  another.  He  felt  that  the  com- 
plaints of  the  Lutherans  were  not  without  cause,  and  he  thought  that 
something  ought  to  be  done  to  remove  that  cause;  but  it  was  dangerous 
to  confess  evils,  and  more  dangerous  to  attempt  to  correct  them.  His 
last  adviser  reminded  him  of  this,  and  suggested  the  old  method  of  re- 
sorting to  the  help  of  the  secular  power;  forcible  repression  had  availed 
in  the  past  and  would  be  useful  again.  Innocent  III  had  put  down  the 
Albigenses,  and  later  Popes  had  subdued  the  Waldenses  and  the  Ar- 
noldists  by  the  use  of  sword  and  torture. 

It  was  August  before  Adrian  reached  Rome,  seven  months  after  his 
election.  After  reaching  the  city  his  progress  had  been  slow;  he  had  done 
nothing  toward  reforming  abuses;  he  did  not  know  where  to  begin,  or 
whether  he  should  begin  at  all.1  But  while  he  was  hesitating,  the  current 
of  events  was  moving  on.  In  particular,  the  German  Diet  was  to  meet, 
and  he  must  be  represented  in  it,  and  have  something  to  lay  before  it. 
At  a  meeting  of  the  Consistory  in  the  early  part  of  November  he  ap- 
pointed Cardinal  Chieregati  his  representative  at  the  Diet.  The  legate 
took  with  him  a  letter  to  the  German  estates,  met  in  "the  quaint  old 
town  of  Ntirnberg."  The  Pope  complained  that  notwithstanding  his 
condemnation,  both  by  Pope  and  Emperor,  Luther  went  on  teaching  and 
writing,  favored  not  only  by  the  meaner  sort  but  by  the  nobles  as  well. 
Such  toleration  of  error  would  be  bad  at  any  time,  it  was  worse  when 
Christendom  was  threatened  by  Turks,  against  whom  the  Pope  could 
take  no  effective  action  because  of  dissensions  in  the  Church.  Luther 
ought  not  to  be  tolerated  any  longer;  it  was  a  shame  for  nobles  to  be 
led  astray  by  a  poor  simple  friar,  as  if  he  alone  had  understanding  and 
wisdom.  The  revolt  against  ecclesiastical  authority  would  be  followed 

1  He  had  a  habit  of  hesitation,  of  saying  conitamus,  videbemus.  On  the  other  hand, 
he  is  said  to  have  been  hindered  in  his  haste,  Nimia  ei  nocebat  diligentia. — Ranke, 
3:30. 


THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

by  a  throwing  off  of  secular  authority ;  those  who  had  not  spared  the  goods 
of  the  Church  would  not  spare  the  goods  of  princes.  If  ft  was  not  pos- 
sible to  subdue  Luther  and  his  followers  by  mild  means,  severe  measures 
must  be  tried.  The  cases  of  Dathan  and  Abiram,  and  of  Ananias  and 
Sapphinu  were  cited.  The  Germans  ought  to  imitate  their  ancestors 
in  the  council  of  Constance,  who  put  to  death  John  Hus  and  Jerome 
of  Frag.  The  Pope  was  following  the  suggestions  of  those  who  had 
advised  extreme  measures.1 

It  is  remarkable  how  often  the  council  of  Constance  is  mentioned  in 
the  documents  of  this  time,  and  how  its  doings  seemed  always  to  be  in 
men's  minds,  Hus  and  Jerome  were  rather  a  living  presence  than  shad- 
owy memories.  They  were  at  Leipag  when  Luther  and  Eck  were  disput- 
ing; they  were  at  Worms  when  the  Emperor  was  urged  to  play  false; 
they  were  with  Adrian  at  Rome  when  he  wrote  his  letter;  and  now  they 
were  at  the  Diet  of  Nurnberg.  The  way  in  which  they  impressed  them- 
setves  on  the  memory  and  imagination  of  men  reminds  one  of  the  "proph- 
ecy" at  the  time  of  their  death,  and  almost  makes  us  feel  that  they 
were  endowed  with  a  kind  of  prescience  and  saw,  as  others  did  not  see, 
what  was  to  come  after  them.  Whfle  Hus  was  in  prison,  helpkss  in  the 
power  of  his  enemies,  he  wrote  to  the  Bohemians:  "First  they  prepared 
snares,  citations  and  anathemas  for  a  goose;  and  now  they  fie  in  wait 
for  some  of  you.  Although  a  goose,  a  tame  animal,  a  domestic  fowl, 
incapable  of  lofty  fight,  cannot  break  their  net;  yet  there  are  other 
birds  which,  by  God's  word  and  a  godly  fife,  mount  on  higji:  these  shall 
break  their  toils  in  pieces,"  In  after  time  the  indefinite  "birds  of  lofty 
flight "  were  exchanged  for  "a  swan,"  *  and  the  swan  was  made  to  represent 
Luther,  and  so  the  prophecy  was  thought  to  have  been  fulfilled.  Jerome's 
words  are  more  definite.  In  closing  his  last  address  to  the  council  he 
said:  "It  is  certain  that  you  wfll  wickedly  and  maliciously  condemn 
me,  although  you  have  found  no  fault  in  me.  But  after  my  death  I 
wfll  fix  in  your  consciences  trouble  and  remorse;  and  I  now  appeal  to 
the  omnipotent  God,  the  high  and  righteous  Judge,  and  challenge  you 
when  a  hundred  revolving  years  shall  have  passed  away,  to  meet  me 
at  his  bar."3  Hus  was  burned  Jury  6,  1415,  Jerome  May  30,  1416. 
It  is  at  least  interesting  to  notice  how  Jerome's  appeal  was  apparently 
heard.  It  was  but  fittie  more  than  a  hundred  years  when  the  repeated 
reference  to  the  council  of  Constance  by  Popes  and  others  brought  it 
before  the  world  and  compelled  men  to  judge  of  its  acts.  The  papal  party 


A  NEW  POPE  AND  AN  OLD  GRIEVANCE  205 

argued  that  Hus  and  Jerome  were  heretics,  because  the  council  had 
condemned  them.  On  the  other  hand  it  was  contended  that  the  council 
of  Constance  and  all  other  councils  are  fallible,  because  this  one  council 
condemned  innocent  men.  The  council  was  judged  and  condemned  by 
the  people,  and  in  this  case  we  might  well  say  that  the  voice  of  the  people 
was  the  voice  of  God. 

After  Chkregati  had  presented  the  Pope's  letter  to  the  Diet,  he  also 
read  his  own  instructions,  in  which  again  there  was  reference  to  the 
council  of  Constance  and  John  Hus,  and  generally  a  repetition  of  what 
had  been  said  in  the  letter.  But  there  was  more  than  thb:  the  Pope  had 
directed  him  ingenuously  to  confess  that  now  for  some  years  there  had 
been  many  abommable  things  in  the  Papal  See,  abuses  in  spiritual  things, 
transgressions  of  the  rommajifhupniK^  gygiy  thing  changed  for  the  worse. 
It  was  not  strange,  he  said,  if  the  *•*****«  had  descended  from  the  head 
to  the  members,  from  the  Pope  to  the  lower  prelates.  AH  of  us,  he 
said,  bishops  and  ecclesiastics,  have  declined  everyone  to  his  own  way; 
for  a  long  time  there  had  been  none  that  did  good,  no  not  one.  "In  this 
matter,"  added  the  Pope,  "you  shall  promise,  as  far  as  we  are  concerned, 
that  we  will  use  aH  diligence  that  this  See,  from  which  perchance  the  evil 
has  proceeded,  shall  be  reformed,  so  that,  just  as  the  corruption  flowed 
down  from  it  to  all  below,  so  also  wholeness  and  the  reformation  shall 
come  from  the  same  source."  He  could  not  promise  that  all  abuses 
would  be  corrected  at  once,  for  the  disease  was  chronic;  not  simple  but 
complicated;  and  it  was  necessary  to  proceed  slowly,  step  by  step,  first 
dealing  with  the  greater  and  more  pressing  evils.  If  they  «h«nld  seek 
to  go  too  fast,  reforming  everything  at  the  same  time,  they  would  throw 
everything  into  confusion.  On  h«  own  responsibility  tly*  legate  ndfod 
attention  to  the  fact  that  monks  had  left  their  cloisters,  and  priests  had 
married,  to  the  great  disgrace  of  refigpon.  The  sacrilegious  marriages, 
he  said,  must  be  annulled;  the  priests  most  be  punished  and  the  monks 
reduced  to  obedience.  The  Diet  was  requested  to  give  a  written  answer.1 

The  papal  nuncio  failed  to  make  the  impression  that  he  wished:  the 
Pope  s  confession  of  sins  was  more  easfly  credited  than  his  promise  of 
amendment.  However  much  he  might  wish  to  correct the  evfls  confessed, 
men  knew  that  he  was  powerless  to  do  it.  Instead  of  being  softened  by 
his  candor  and  good  intentions,  the  Germans  were  confirmed  in  then- 
own  way  of  thinking.  They  recognized  how  great  was  the  danger  threat- 
ening from  the  Turks,  and  the  importance  of  being  united  against  them; 
but  they  were  not  to  blame  for  the  religious  differences  among  them- 
selves, or  for  not  executing  the  edict  and  ban  against  Luther.  Their 
f allure  to  do  so  had  not  been  without  the  greatest  and 

'Summary  in  Sfcidan,  pp.  58-00;  text  in  Wakh.  15:  2125  **- 


206  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

reasons.  The  people  had  long  felt  that  they  had  suffered  many  wrongs 
from  the  Roman  Court,  and  now  they  were  made  certain  of  it  by  Luther's 
writings;  and  any  attempt  to  proceed  against  him  would  be  regarded 
as  making  war  on  the  truth  of  the  Gospel  and  tending  to  promote  the 
abuses  and  evils  of  which  they  complained.  It  would  result  in  seditions 
and  civil  wars.  There  must  be  found,  therefore,  some  other  and  better 
way  of  remedying  the  evils  than  the  Pope  had  suggested.  There  could 
not  be  any  real  and  lasting  settlement  of  affairs  until  the  abuses  of  which 
the  Germans  complained  were  reformed.  For  years  they  had  paid 
annates  on  condition  that  these  should  be  used  in  war  against  the  Turks 
and  for  the  defense  of  the  Christian  religion.  The  annates  had  not  been 
used  for  such  purposes,  and  yet  their  permanent  collection  was  exacted. 
The  estates  wished  the  collection  of  them  to  cease.  The  Pope  had  asked 
their  advice  as  to  the  best  way  of  settling  the  religious  disputes:  they 
thought  that  he,  with  the  concurrence  of  the  Emperor,  should  call  as 
soon  as  possible  a  free  Christian  council,  to  meet  in  Germany,  at  Mainz, 
Cologne,  Metz,  or  some  other  convenient  place.  The  calling  of  such  a 
council  ought  not  to  be  delayed  more  than  a  year;  and  everyone,  ecclesi- 
astic or  secular,  should  be  permitted  to  speak  freely  in  it,  and  without 
any  hindrance  to  consult  for  the  glory  of  God,  the  salvation  of  souls 
and  the  good  of  the  Church.  In  the  meantime  they  would  treat  with 
the  Elector  of  Saxony  that  Luther  and  his  friends  should  not  write 
or  print  any  more,  and  that  the  preachers  throughout  Germany  should 
preach  the  Gospel  sincerely,  according  to  the  approved  doctrine  of  the 
Church,  do  nothing  to  excite  tumults,  avoid  disputations,  and  leave  all 
controversies  to  be  settled  by  the  council.  The  bishops  were  to  appoint 
learned,  prudent  men  to  look  after  the  preachers  and  see  that  they 
preached  as  they  ought  to  preach;  and  that  nothing  new  was  printed  until 
it  had  been  submitted  to  the  judgment  of  learned  men.  As  to  the  married 
priests,  the  civil  law  inflicted  no  punishment  on  them;  they  might  be 
subjected  to  canonical  discipline.  If  they  should  be  guilty  of  any  wicked- 
ness the  magistrate  ought  to  correct  them.  This  was  the  answer  of  the 
Estates.1 

It  did  not  please  the  legate;  he  thought  that  the  offences  of  the  Papacy 
furnished  no  good  reason  for  tolerating  the  scandals  of  the  Lutherans. 
First  execute  the  ban  against  Luther,  and  then  the  Pope  would  correct 
what  was  amiss  at  Rome.  He  did  not  complain  that  the  princes  had  asked 
for  a  general  council,  but  he  did  not  like  it  that  the  council  was  to  be 
held  with  the  consent  of  the  Emperor,  or  that  the  Pope  was  not  permitted 
to  choose  freely  the  time  and  place  for  holding  it.  He  wished  no  one 
to  preach  whose  doctrine  the  bishop  had  not  approved.  The  condemned 

1  Sleidan,  p.  60;  fuller  summary  in  Sarpi,  pp.  24-26;  text  in  Walch,  15:  2138  seq. 


A  NEW  POPE  AND  AN  OLD  GRIEVANCE  207 

books  ought  to  be  burned;  and  no  new  books  should  be  printed  except 
under  the  Pope's  regulation.  To  remit  the  married  priests  to  the  civil 
law  and  to  punish  them  only  for  actual  offenses  was  to  interfere  with 
ecclesiastical  jurisdiction,  "to  thrust  the  sickle  into  another  man's 
field,"  as  the  legate  expressed  it.  The  offending  priests  ought  to  be 
handed  over  to  the  bishops  for  punishment.1 

The  nuncio  and  the  Diet  could  not  agree.  As  the  Germans  said,  he 
thought  only  of  the  profit  of  the  Roman  Court,  not  at  all  of  the  necessi- 
ties of  Germany.  He  expected  them  to  do  at  once  what  the  Pope  re- 
quired, and  wait  the  Pope's  pleasure  for  relief  from  their  burdens.  This 
they  were  not  willing  to  do.2  On  the  contrary,  they  stated  again  and  more 
definitely  what  they  required  of  the  Pope  and  the  German  bishops, 
and  informed  the  nuncio  that  if  relief  was  not  granted  them  they  would 
take  "steps  to  free  themselves  form  the  burdens  complained  of,  and  to 
recover  their  ancient  liberty."  They  formally  stated  anew  their  list 
of  grievances — their  centum  gravamina.3  The  papal  court  had  been  en- 
slaving the  people,  robbing  them  of  their  money,  and  appropriating 
the  rights  and  duties  that  belonged  to  the  civil  magistrate.  They  also 
complained  of  the  bishops.  Having  concluded  their  deliberations,  they 
issued  a  recess  embodying  the  substance  of  their  answer  to  the  Pope.4 
Not  long  after  the  Pope's  letter,  the  nuncio's  instructions,  and  the  an- 
swer of  the  Diet,  including  the  grievances,  were  printed;  copies  were  sent 
to  Rome,  and  others  were  scattered  abroad,  that  all  might  know  what 
had  been  done  at  Niirnberg. 

Not  much  progress  had  been  made  in  getting  the  ban  and  edict  against 
Luther  executed.  The  recess  of  the  Diet  was  without  force;  it  invited 
neglect;  it  did  not  really  require  anything  to  be  done — it  was  rather 
an  explanation  and  justification  of  the  failure  to  do  anything.  The  Diet 
had  confessed  that  fear  of  sedition  and  civil  war  had  deterred  the  princes 
from  attempting  to  execute  former  laws.  As  the  circumstances  were 
unchanged,  it  was  easily  understood  that  the  same  cause  would  prevent 
the  enforcement  of  the  new  edict.  Besides,  it  was  so  indefinite  in  its 
requirements  that  each  party  might  understand  it  to  suit  itself.  Luther 
wrote  to  the  princes  that  he  had  read  it  with  pleasure,  but  that  "through 
the  craft  and  snares  of  the  devil  it  had  not  the  authority  that  it  ought 
to  have."  Some  of  the  highest  quality  refused  to  obey  it,  and  variously 
construed  it.  He  would  give  his  interpretation  of  it.  Some  thought, 
he  said,  that  to  preach  according  to  the  approved  teachings  of  the  Church 
was  to  follow  the  authority  of  Aquinas  and  Scotus  and  others  approved 

1  Sarpi,  p.  26. 

2  Walch,  15:  2183  seq. 
8  Sleidan,  p.  63. 

4  Dated  May  8,  1522,  text  in  Walch,  15:  2215  seq. 


208  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

by  the  Pope.  For  his  part  he  took  it  to  mean  that  he  was  to  be  guided 
by  Cyprian  and  Augustine,  the  older  Church  Fathers,  and  the  Holy 
Scriptures.  It  was  required  that  the  bishop  should  appoint  learned  men 
to  supervise  the  preaching  of  the  priests.  This  could  not  be  done  be- 
cause the  " learned  men"  were  wanting,  those  under  the  control  of  the 
bishops  having  "learned  nothing  but  sophistry."  He  did  not  object 
particularly  to  the  requirement  that  books  should  be  licensed  before 
they  were  printed,  but  as  he  understood  the  law  it  did  not  refer  to  the 
printing  of  the  Holy  Scriptures.  As  to  the  married  priests,  he  thought 
it  hard  that  they  should  be  punished  according  to  the  canon  law;  as 
that  law  was  contrary  to  the  Scripture  it  should  rather  be  changed. 
However,  they  who  would  punish  the  marriage  of  priests  only  by  canon 
law  were  much  more  moderate  than  those  who  required  the  rack,  torment 
and  death  for  that  offense.  But  yet,  as  Luther's  opponents  did  not  obey 
the  law,  he  thought  that  he  and  his  friends  ought  to  have  the  liberty 
of  violating  it.1  And  this  seemed  to  be  the  general  opinion.  The  Diet 
virtually  confessed  that  it  could  do  nothing:  only  a  general  council  was 
competent  to  meet  the  requirements  of  the  case. 

The  Pope's  candor  did  not  help  his  cause;  his  opponents  thought  this 
one  of  the  cases  in  which  men  make  a  merit  of  confessing  sins  that 
they  have  no  intention  to  forsake;  his  friends  excused  his  mistake  in 
consideration  of  his  good  intentions  and  ignorance  of  the  ways  of  the 
Papacy.  Leo  X,  they  thought,  would  never  have  been  guilty  of  such  hurt- 
ful simplicity — in  which  they  were  no  more  just  than  to  the  late  Pope. 
Some  mockingly  said  that  it  would  be  well  to  have  the  evils  corrected 
step  by  step — with  a  hundred  years  between  the  steps!  How  much 
Adrian  was  prepared  to  do  in  fulfilment  of  his  promise  of  reformation 
was  not  put  to  the  proof.  "The  court  not  being  worthy  of  such  a  Pope,  it 
pleased  God  to  call  him  almost  as  soon  as  he  had  received  the  report  of 
the  nuncio  from  Niirnberg."  He  died  September  13,  1523,  after  having 
been  in  Rome  less  than  a  year,  and  again  there  were  sinister  rumors  of 
poison.  He  was  succeeded  by  the  nephew  of  Leo  X,  Cardinal  Julius  di 
Medici,  who  took  the  name  of  Clement  VII.  In  many  respects  the  new 
Pope  was  exactly  the  opposite  of  Adrian.  The  ten  years  of  his  pontificate 
were  years  of  development  that  he  was  powerless  to  arrest  or  direct. 
Though  cautious,  skillful,  able,  tireless,  he  was  dwarfed  by  the  difficulties 
of  his  position. 

Adrian  had  made  three  mistakes :  he  had  too  freely  confessed  the  abuses 
of  the  Papacy;  he  had  too  rashly  promised  to  reform  them;  and  he  had 
imprudently  asked  the  advice  of  the  Germans  as  to  how  he  should  settle 
matters  in  Germany.  Clement  would  be  guilty  of  no  such  indiscretions. 

1  Summary  in  Sleidan,  63,  64;  text  in  Walch,  15:  2208. 


A  NEW  POPE  AND  AN  OLD  GRIEVANCE  209 

tn  January,  1524,  the  Diet  reassembled  at  Niirnberg.  Cardinal  Cam- 
peggio  was  sent  as  papal  legate;  he  bore  a  very  loving  letter  to  Fred- 
erick, Duke  of  Saxony — a  letter  of  the  same  kind  that  the  Popes  had 
been  sending  the  Elector  for  some  years,  full  of  expressions  of  good  will 
and  expostulations.  The  Pope  was  glad  to  hear  of  the  Diet,  and  that  the 
Elector  was  to  attend  it,  he  had  great  hopes  that  something  would  be  done 
for  the  welfare  of  Christendom;  he  sent  his  legate,  a  "man  of  great  virtue/* 
whom  he  begged  Frederick  kindly  to  receive  and  assist.  At  the  same  time 
he  mentioned  "the  sincere  love  and  affection  that  he  bore  toward 
Germans."  l 

Unfortunately  the  Elector  had  left  Ntirnberg  before  Campeggio  ar- 
rived, and  the  two  did  not  meet.  The  legate  sent  him  the  Pope's  letter, 
together  with  one  of  his  own,  in  which  he  regretted  his  ill  luck  in  not 
meeting  him.  He  had  heard  the  report,  he  said,  that  the  Elector  "was 
a  favorer  of  the  new  heresies,  which  report  neither  he  nor  the  Pope  could 
be  persuaded  to  believe."  From  the  first  time  he  had  known  him  he  had 
observed  many  noble  and  excellent  virtues  in  him,  and  especially  that 
"he  was  devout  in  his  religion  and  a  most  obedient  son  of  the  Catholic 
and  Apostolic  Church."  He  wished  him  to  imitate  the  virtues  of  his 
ancestors  (the  old  wish);  warned  him  of  the  dangers  of  sedition;  those 
who  despised  the  laws  of  the  Church  would  after  a  while  contemn  the 
magistrate.  Some  took  delight  in  seeing  the  prelates  of  the  Church 
tossed  and  despised,  not  recognizing  that  they  themselves  were  in  dan- 
ger. The  Pope,  as  the  pilot  of  the  ship,  sat  aloft  and  foresaw  the 
approaching  storm,  and  sent  him,  his  legate,  to  forewarn  all  the  princes, 
and  especially  the  Elector,  of  the  danger  that  threatened,  not  so  much 
Rome  as  Germany,  with  ruin. 

The  legate  also  addressed  the  Diet.  He  had,  he  said,  instructions  to 
treat  of  two  things:  religion  and  the  Turkish  war.  As  to  the  first,  he 
was  surprised  that  so  many  honorable  princes  should  suffer  the  religion 
and  rites  and  ceremonies  wherein  they  were  bred  and  their  fathers  and 
forefathers  had  died,  to  be  abolished  and  trampled  under  foot,  at  the 
whim  and  persuasion  of  a  few  men.  The  religious  innovations,  if  not 
checked,  could  not  but  produce  dreadful  troubles.  He  had  been  sent 
to  join  with  them  in  devising  means  to  remedy  the  evil.  He  did  not 
come  to  prescribe  to  them,  or  to  demand  anything  from  them,  but  only 
to  assist  with  his  advice,  and  apply  some  salve  to  the  public  sore.  He 
then  enlarged  on  the  dangers  from  the  Turks.2 

The  politic  legate,  whose  business  it  was  to  conciliate,  could  not  avoid 
addressing  the  princes  in  a  tone  of  condescension,  so  great  was  the  force 

1  Dated  December  7,  1523;  Walctt,  15.  2236;  Campeggio'a  letter,  ib,  2339. 

2  Summary  in  Sleidan,  pp.  68,  69. 


210  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

of  habit,  and  so  impossible  was  it  for  a  great  dignitary  of  the  Church 
to  realize  that  the  Papacy  and  the  papal  officials  were  already  falling 
from  their  lofty  preeminence — that  the  times  were  changing.  The  Diet 
heard  him  respectfully,  thanked  him  for  his  good  will  toward  Germany, 
and  were  glad  that  the  Pope  had  sent  him.  So  much  common  courtesy 
demanded.  But  the  princes  were  evidently  not  in  the  best  humor.  They 
supposed,  they  said,  that  the  Pope  and  Cardinals,  who  were  acquainted 
with  the  state  of  affairs,  had  given  the  legate  some  instructions,  and  they 
wished  to  hear  them.  They  themselves,  the  year  before,  had  proposed 
a  plan  for  settling  affairs,  had  given  it  to  the  legate  in  writing,  and  he 
had  promised  to  deliver  it  to  his  Holiness.  They  wished  to  know  what 
the  Pope  had  to  say  about  it.  The  legate  was  conveniently  ignorant: 
"As  to  whether  or  not  any  method  for  composing  the  difference  in  re- 
ligion had  been  proposed  by  them  or  delivered  to  the  Pope  and  college 
of  Cardinals,  he  knew  nothing  at  all  of  it."  He  thought  those  who  were 
in  the  country  and  knew  its  customs  were  the  best  qualified  to  judge 
how  to  deal  with  the  present  difficulties;  but,  in  his  opinion,  the  first 
thing  to  be  done  was  to  enforce  the  decree  of  the  Diet  of  Worms.  He 
could  not  tell  whether  the  demands  of  the  Diet  had  ever  been  sent  to 
Rome  or  not.  Three  copies  of  them  had  been  brought  privately,  one 
of  which  had  fallen  into  his  hands.  The  Pope  and  Cardinals  could  not 
be  persuaded  that  the  princes  had  written  them,  but  thought  rather 
that  some  private  person  had  published  them,  in  hatred  of  the  Court 
at  Rome;  and  he  had  no  instructions  with  reference  to  them.  But  some 
of  the  demands  reflected  on  the  Pope  and  favored  heresy;  these  he  could 
not  meddle  with,  but  such  as  were  grounded  in  justice  he  would  con- 
sider. And  yet,  he  said,  the  princes'  demands  might  have  been  more 
moderately  proposed. 

The  Diet  was  not  deceived  by  the  legate's  profession  of  ignorance. 
They  saw  that  it  was  the  policy  of  the  new  Pope  to  treat  everything  that 
had  occurred  at  the  former  meeting  as  if  it  had  not  occurred.  A  com- 
mittee was  appointed  to  confer  with  Campeggio,  and  he  proposed  a 
scheme  of  reform  that  was  not  satisfactory  and  was  not  entertained. 
A  message  came  from  the  Emperor,  complaining  that  the  decree  of 
Worms,  which  was  made  with  their  unanimous  advice  and  consent, 
had  been  infringed,  to  the  great  prejudice  of  Germany;  and  demanding 
that  it  should  be  carefully  observed  for  the  future.  The  princes  an- 
swered that  they  would  observe  it  as  far  as  they  could,  but  how  far 
and  in  what  way  they  intended  to  observe  it  may  be  gathered  from  the 
decree  of  the  Diet,  April  18th — "That  with  the  Emperor's  consent  the 
Pope  should,  with  all  convenient  speed;  call  a  free  council  in  some  con- 
venient place  in  Germany;  that,  on  November  llth,  the  States  should 


A  NEW  POPE  AND  AN  OLD  GRIEVANCE  211 

assemble  again  at  Speyer,  to  consult  what  should  be  followed  until 
the  council  should  begin;  and  that  the  princes,  in  their  several  provinces 
should  appoint  some  pious  and  learned  men  to  collect  out  of  the  books 
of  Luther  and  others  all  disputed  points,  to  be  presented  to  the  princes 
In  the  next  Diet,  that  they  might  proceed  more  orderly  when  they 
should  come  to  be  examined  in  the  council.  Furthermore,  that  the 
magistrates  should  take  special  care  that  the  Gospel  was  purely  and 
soberly  taught,  according  to  the  sense  and  interpretation  of  expositors 
approved  by  the  Church;  that  no  infamous  libels  or  pictures  should  be 
published;  and  lastly,  that  those  things  wherewith  the  princes  had 
lately  charged  the  Court  of  Rome  and  the  clergy  should  be  treated  of 
and  discussed  in  the  Diet  of  Speyer."1 

The  sins  of  the  Papacy  were  coming  home  to  vex  it.  As  Chieregati 
had  failed  in  the  first,  so  Campeggio  failed  in  the  second  Diet  at  Nurn- 
berg.  The  Germans  were  more  concerned  to  have  their  complaints 
against  the  Pope  and  his  Court  righted,  than  they  were  to  enforce  the 
law  against  Luther  and  his  followers — long  accumulated  evils  had  be- 
come unbearable.  In  all  propositions  from  the  Pope  he  had  seemed 
to  care  only  for  his  own  interests.  This  the  Germans  resented,  and 
insisted  that  he  should  reform  abuses  before  they  undertook  to  settle 
religious  differences.  The  proposed  meeting  at  Speyer  was  especially 
significant;  the  year  before  the  princes  had  threatened  to  take  matters 
into  their  own  hands  and  now  they  were  proceeding  to  carry  that  threat 
into  execution.  It  was  to  thwart  the  plan  of  the  Diet  that  Campeggio 
now  directed  his  efforts;  he  would  divide  the  Germans  and  array  one 
party  against  the  other.  To  this  end  he  contrived  a  meeting  at  Regens- 
burg  of  such  princes  as  were  favorable  to  Rome.  These  were  Ferdinand, 
the  Emperor's  brother,  Archduke  of  Austria,  the  two  Dukes  of  Bavaria, 
the  bishops  of  Trent  and  Regensburg,  the  legate  himself  as  Archbishop 
of  Salzburg,  and  the  representatives  of  nine  other  bishops.  To  this 
convention  he  proposed  the  "reformation"  that  the  Diet  had  declined 
to  accept.  It  consisted  of  thirty-seven  articles  in  reference  to  the  dress 
and  conversation  of  the  clergy,  administering  the  sacraments  gratis, 
and  other  ecclesiastical  functions,  banquets,  those  that  were  to  take 
orders,  avoiding  traffic  and  public  houses,  and  having  concubines;  on 
the  number  of  holy  days,  fastings,  confessing,  communicating;  on 
blasphemies,  sorcerers,  soothsayers,  and  other  things  of  the  same  kind. 
These  were,  indeed,  occasions  of  scandal  and  ought  to  have  been  amended 
or  regulated,  but  they  were  not  the  things  of  which  the  Germans  most 
complained.  It  was  not  the  lower  but  the  higher  clergy  that  gave 
offense;  the  exactions  of  the  Pope,  the  greed,  tyranny,  negligence  of 

1  Sleidan,  p.  73;  full  text  in  Walch.  15:  2243  seq. 


212  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

the  bishops.  In  offering  to  correct  things  of  minor  importance,  the 
legate  gave  assurance  that  no  reformation  of  principal  things  was  to 
be  expected  from  him.  Hence  it  was  that  the  Diet  was  not  satisfied  with 
what  was  proposed.  The  convention  at  Regensburg  was  more  com- 
pliant; it  accepted  the  legate's  scheme,  and  decided  that,  as  the  Diet 
had  determined  to  execute  the  decree  of  Worms  as  far  as  possible,  it 
should  be  executed  in  the  domains  of  those  present.  The  Scripture 
should  be  taught  according  to  the  interpretation  of  the  Church;  no 
one  should  preach  without  a  license  from  a  bishop;  no  alterations  should 
be  made  in  the  sacraments  or  rites  of  worship;  no  one  was  to  receive 
the  communion  without  confession  and  absolution;  all  monks  and  nuns 
who  had  forsaken  their  orders,  and  all  married  clergy  were  to  be  severely 
punished;  nothing  was  to  be  printed  without  the  authority  of  the  magis- 
trate; Luther's  books  were  not  to  be  published  or  sold;  young  men 
from  their  dominions  who  were  at  Wittenberg  should  return  home  or 
go  somewhere  else,  under  penalty  of  being  incapable  of  any  Church 
living  or  of  teaching  youth;  those  who  had  been  proscribed  or  banished 
should  not  be  permitted  to  remain  in  their  territories.1 

The  convention  had  met  at  Regensburg  July  6,  1524.  It  was  the  first 
step  toward  the  division  of  Germany  into  two  definite,  organized 
ecclesiastical  parties.  The  action  of  the  Catholic  princes  was  out  of 
line  with  that  of  the  Diet,  and  it  was  not  taken  in  good  part  that  some 
of  the  princes  should  presume  to  legislate  for  all,  especially  as  the  regular 
national  assembly  had  so  recently  spoken.  But  this  conflict  among 
the  States  themselves  was  of  less  importance,  because  the  Emperor, 
who  was  then  in  Spain,  disallowed  the  action  of  the  Diet.  He  com- 
plained that  it  had  condemned  only  some  of  Luther's  books,  while 
he  had  condemned  them  all;  that  it  had  decreed  a  general  council  in 
Germany  and  requested  the  legate  to  treat  with  the  Pope  concerning 
it,  instead  of  applying  to  him,  whose  business  it  was  to  care  for  such 
things.  He  resented  the  calling  of  a  national  convention  at  Speyer, 
and  forbade  it  to  assemble.  As  the  council  was  necessary,  it  should 
be  held,  but  at  such  time  and  place  as  he  should  designate.  In  the 
meantime  the  Edict  of  Worms  must  be  obeyed,  and  there  must  be  no 
discussion  of  religious  matters  until  the  council  was  called  by  the  Pope's 
orders  and  his.  The  Emperor  spoke  in  a  somewhat  loftier  tone  than 
the  princes  were  accustomed  to,  and  they  were  not  altogether  pleased.2 

There  was  one  thing  as  to  which  the  Emperor  and  the  Diet  were 
agreed:  the  necessity  of  a  general  council.  In  this  again  we  have  an 

1  The  account  of  the  meeting  is  in  Walch,  15:  2263;  the  agreement  reached  ib.f 
2296  seq.;  the  statutes  of  reformation  proposed  to  the  Catholic  estates  by  Cam- 
peggio  are  given  in  Mansi,  32:  1079-1091  in  thirty-five  articles. 

2  Dated  Bourgos  July  15,  1524;  text  in  Walch,  15:  2268  seq. 


A  NEW  POPE  AND  AN  OLD  GRIEVANCE  213 

intimation  of  the  close  relations  of  the  beginning  of  the  sixteenth  century 
to  the  fifteenth.  In  the  earlier  time  there  were  evils  to  be  corrected, 
the  Papacy  was  corrupt,  there  must  be  "a  reformation  of  head  and 
members."  Nearly  the  same  state  of  things  existed  now.  A  general 
council  was  then  the  solace  and  refuge  of  those  who  were  grieved  and 
oppressed  by  the  state  of  the  Church,  and  it  would  be  so  again.  But 
now  as  then  the  Pope  was  afraid  of  a  general  council.  Clement  VII 
was  wont  to  say  that  a  council  is  always  good  when  anything  is  to  be 
treated  of  but  the  Pope's  authority;  but  that  being  called  in  question, 
nothing  was  more  dangerous.  As  in  former  times  the  Pope's  strength 
consisted  in  having  recourse  to  councils,  so  now  the  security  of  popedom 
consists  in  declining  and  avoiding  them.  This  opinion  was  in  perfect 
consistency  with  the  claims  of  the  Papacy;  holding  that  the  Pope  is 
above  councils,  and,  in  a  sense,  above  the  Scripture,  there  was  no  need 
of  a  council — there  was  nothing  for  a  council  to  do.  Leo  X  had  already 
condemned  Luther  and  his  doctrines,  and  to  ask  that  his  case  be  referred 
to  a  council  was  derogatory  to  the  authority  of  the  Apostolic  See.  But 
besides  this,  Clement  VII  probably  had  reasons  of  his  own  for  resisting 
the  demands  of  the  Germans.  Jealousy  of  the  Emperor's  power  may 
have  influenced  him;  it  may  be  that  he  feared  inquisition  would  be 
made  into  his  own  history  and  conduct.  He  was  of  illegitimate  birth; 
there  was  some  doubt  concerning  the  means  by  which  he  had  risen 
to  power;  his  administration  had  not  been  perfectly  clean.  Still,  as 
these  things  are  not  needed  to  account  for  Clement's  policy,  we  need 
not  insist  on  them.  We  ought,  however,  to  note  that. the  persistent 
and  general  demand  for  a  council  shows  how  little  practical  hold  the 
doctrine  of  papal  infallibility  had  on  public  sentiment  in  the  Empire. 
It  has  been  the  object  of  this  chapter  to  show  the  conditions,  general 
and  special,  that  prevented  the  active  prosecution  of  Luther  after  his 
excommunication  by  the  Pope  and  his  condemnation  at  Worms.  Next 
to  the  favor  of  the  Elector  of  Saxony  he  owed  his  safety  to  the  fact 
that  he  had  a  great  party  with  him — his  teaching  had  appealed  to  the 
hearts  and  judgments  of  the  people.  Thousands  of  them  did  not  regard 
it  as  a  new  heresy,  but  as  the  old  orthodoxy.  Then,  Germany  had  long- 
existing  and  deeply-galling  grievances  against  the  Papacy.  With  so 
much  in  favor  of  Luther,  and  so  much  against  the  Pope,  the  rulers  would 
not  attempt  to  execute  the  ban  at  the  risk  of  civil  war.  They  did  not 
prosecute  Luther  because  they  were  afraid.  In  process  of  time  political 
and  ecclesiastical  grievances  might  be  forgotten  or  become  of  little 
influence  in  comparison  with  newly  stimulated  devotion  to  the  old 
faith,  and  then  the  conflict  would  come.  The  meeting  at  Regensburg 
gave  intimation  of  the  rising  of  that  devotion — of  the  coming  of  a  time 


214  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

when  loyalty  to  the  Pope  would  override  all  other  considerations.  In 
fact,  the  division  among  the  princes  might  have  produced  immediate 
results  disastrous  to  Luther  and  to  Germany,  if  there  had  not  arisen 
new  dangers  which  for  a  time  thrust  into  the  background  all  less  vital 
concerns. 


CHAPTER   III 

EXEUNT  HUMANISTS 

WITH  the  prophets  out  of  the  way,  and  Carlstadt  out  of  the  way, 
much  had  been  done  to  prepare  for  a  simple,  undivided  development 
of  things  at  Wittenberg,  and  from  Wittenberg.  The  new  movement 
was  separating  itself  from  every  hindering  alliance,  not  only  in  the 
narrower,  but  also  in  the  wider  field.  In  every  time  of  the  quickening 
of  human  thought  and  of  the  upspringing  of  new  systems,  many  forces 
start  together  that  do  not  belong  together.  In  the  beginning  they 
may  be  serviceable  to  each  other  in  overcoming  a  common  resistance, 
but  some  will  cease  to  work,  others  will  be  deflected,  until  at  last  only 
those  that  have  a  common  end  will  move  on  a  common  line.  The  period 
immediately  after  the  Diet  of  Worms  was  the  time  when  Luther's  work 
was  to  get  itself  discriminated  from  everything  that  did  not  belong 
to  it,  and  definitely  to  assume  its  own  character.  We  have  already 
seen  the  first  steps  in  this  discriminating  process;  in  no  long  time  that 
process  advanced  still  further.  In  the  beginning,  and  for  several  years, 
Luther  had  no  more  serviceable  helpers  than  the  Humanists.  He  and 
they,  in  the  early  stages  of  his  work,  were  hindered  by  the  same  cause: 
the  domination  of  Aristotle  and  the  scholastic  theologians.  He  and 
they  were  in  close  sympathy  as  asserters  of  the  claims  of  reason  against 
a  narrow  and  narrowing  authority.  But  though  they  had  a  common 
hindrance,  they  had  by  no  means  a  common  end,  and  as  soon  as  Luther 
began  to  develop  clearly  his  purposes  and  ends  he  and  his  quondam 
allies  began  to  separate. 

Of  one  group  among  the  Humanists,  Hutten  was  the  representative 
and  type.  He  had  won  national  fame  before  Luther.  He  was  crowned 
by  Maximilian  at  Augsburg,  July  12,  1517,  as  the  greatest  poet  of 
Germany — a  title  that  he  had  fairly  won.  Until  Luther's  theses  appeared 
he  was  pure  Humanist,  and  in  the  earlier  stages  of  the  resulting  contro- 
versy, like  Leo  X,  he  saw  nothing  more  than  a  vulgar  squabble  of  monks. 
But  his  experience  hi  Italy  had  made  him  patriot  as  well  as  Humanist, 
and  he  quickly  saw  the  possibilities  of  the  Lutheran  movement  as  a 
means  of  promoting  German  liberty.  Liberty  meant  to  him  first  of 
all  the  Empire's  independence  of  Rome — it  meant  the  destruction,  at 
least  the  strict  limitation,  of  the  Pope's  temporal  power.  As  the  breach 
between  Luther  and  the  Pope  widened,  Hutten  perceived  more  clearly 

215 


216  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

the  availability  of  Lutheranism  as  a  political  weapon  to  be  used  for  the 
advancement  of  his  political  ideals.  Though  he  had  a  good  deal  to  say 
about  "the  Gospel"  in  the  almost  delirious  letters  that  he  wrote  at  the 
time  of  the  Diet  of  Worms,  it  is  plain  that  political  freedom,  not  religious 
is  the  cause  lying  nearest  his  heart.  Of  the  Gospel  in  itself,  and  for 
its  own  sake,  there  is  little  reason  to  suppose  that  he  ever  had  any  real 
appreciation. 

Hutten  was  himself  a  moral  and  physical  decadent.  Moreover,  he 
belonged  to  a  decadent  class.  His  interest  in  the  Reformation  seems 
to  have  been  wholly  selfish  and  calculating — he  favored  it  in  the  interests 
of  a  political  theory  and  of  his  own  class.  He  hoped  by  an  alliance 
with  the  reformers,  against  the  Church  on  the  one  hand  and  the  princes 
on  the  other,  to  rescue  his  order  from  impending  doom  and  to  build  up 
a  centralized  government  in  Germany  as  the  bulwark  of  her  liberties. 
He  could  see  better  what  it  were  well  to  do,  than  what  it  was  possible 
to  accomplish.  The  drift  of  things  had  set  too  strongly  away  from 
both  the  ends  that  he  sought,  and  in  the  direction  of  princely  oligarchy, 
for  a  much  stronger  man  than  he  to  overcome. 

In  this  enterprise  he  became  associated  with  a  man  whose  far  greater 
strength  for  a  time  held  out  some  hope  of  success.  Franz  von  Sickingen, 
Knight  of  Ebernburg,  in  the  district  of  Mainz,  was  born  in  the  same 
year  with  Luther,  the  elder  of  the  two  by  a  few  months.  By  1521  he 
had  gained  national  fame  as  a  warrior  of  prowess,  and  the  sworn  foe 
of  the  territorial  princes  of  Germany.  Holding  directly  of  the  Emperor, 
like  all  others  of  his  order,  he  had  some  show  of  right  in  claiming  to  be 
the  equal  of  the  princes  in  rank  and  authority,  while  his  possessions 
and  military  strength  perhaps  entitled  him  to  equality  with  some  of 
the  lesser  princes,  whose  territories  included  but  a  few  square  miles. 
One  of  the  first  to  comprehend  the  revolution  in  warfare  that  was  going 
on,  he  had  gradually  assembled  a  force  of  ten  thousand  mercenaries, 
who  were  regularly  paid,  well  disciplined,  armed  with  the  newest 
weapons  and  drilled  in  the  new  tactics.  He  was  an  ally  whom  Maximilian 
and  Charles  V  were  glad  to  have  on  their  side,  and  he  was  therefore 
treated  with  tender  consideration  where  a  weaker  man  would  have 
been  forcibly  suppressed.  He  had  long  been  the  terror  of  the  law- 
abiding  and  peace-loving  element  of  the  Empire.  A  private  war  against 
the  city  of  Worms,  in  1516,  had  brought  upon  him  a  decree  of  banish- 
ment, but  he  snapped  his  fingers  at  the  law  and  continued  his  career 
without  molestation.  He  was  probably  attracted  to  Luther  by  Hutten, 
who  had  become  his  ally,  giving  his  pen  to  the  cause  of  the  knights 
in  return  for  protection  and  bread.  At  Hutten's  prompting  he  pledged 
the  reformer  assistance  and  offered  him  harborage  in  his  castle,  in  case 


EXEUNT  HUMANISTS  217 

Saxony  should  become  too  warm  for  him.1  Luther  was  undoubtedly 
grateful  for  such  an  offer,  at  a  time  when  he  had  not  too  many  powerful 
friends,  but  he  was  too  wise  to  compromise  himself  and  his  cause  by 
a  closer  connection  with  one  whose  real  devotion  to  the  Gospel  he  had 
good  reason  to  distrust.  Sickingen  was  as  little  a  reformer,  in  truth, 
as  he  was  Humanist — he  was  either,  or  neither,  as  suited  his  purposes — 
a  man  of  too  little  learning  for  the  one  and  too  little  piety  for  the  other. 

Sickingen  and  Hutten  bore  a  double  hatred  to  the  great  ecclesias- 
tics of  the  Empire,  wishing  their  destruction  alike  as  territorial  princes 
and  as  priests.  They  regarded  secularization  and  partitioning  of  church 
property  as  the  most  vital  part  of  religious  and  political  reform.  This 
was  the  view  ultimately  taken  by  all  the  princes  who  followed  the  lead 
of  Luther,  but  in  1522  it  was  a  novelty.  To  some  extent  the  movement 
of  the  knights  to  enforce  this  principle  had  the  sympathy  of  Luther 
and  the  free  cities,  but  it  was  too  revolutionary  a  scheme  to  warrant 
them  in  any  open  demonstrations.  In  August,  1522,  Sickingen  summoned 
a  meeting  of  knights,  and  a  "Fraternal  League"  was  organized.  Their 
avowed  programme  was  a  mixture  of  economic,  social  and  religious 
reform:  they  demanded  the  restoration  of  the  ancient  liberties  of  the 
Empire,  with  the  Emperor  at  the  head,  the  nobles  at  his  side,  all  of  equal 
rank,  which  of  course  involved  the  abolition  of  the  territorial  authority 
of  the  princes;  the  abolition  of  mercantile  monopolies;  the  abrogation  of 
foreign  laws  and  foreign  administrators  and  judges;  the  diminishing  of 
monks  and  ecclesiastics;  the  enactment  of  laws  against  foreign  manners; 
the  abolition  of  indulgences  and  other  taxes  by  which  Germany  was 
drained  of  money  to  enrich  Rome.  The  free  cities  were  invited  to  join 
the  league,  and  it  was  confidently  expected  that  the  subjects  of  some  of 
the  princes  would  seize  this  occasion  to  rise  against  them  and  throw  off 
the  yoke.  Had  Sickingen  gained  a  great  initial  success,  there  is  no 
telling  to  what  the  movement  might  have  grown,  for  it  undoubtedly 
appealed  to  a  vast  underlying  sentiment  of  dissatisfaction  in  Germany.2 

But  the  uprising  of  the  knights  was  a  failure  from  the  first.  Sickingen 
issued  a  declaration  of  war  against  the  Archbishop  of  Trier,  and  in 
September  appeared  in  force  before  the  walls  of  the  city,  which  he  ex- 
pected to  take  by  surprise  and  easily  overcome.  Immediately  ordered 
by  the  imperial  council  to  retire,  he  replied  that  he  was  as  much  the 
servant  of  the  Emperor  as  the  council;  that  he  intended  to  establish 

1  Hutton  wrote  Jan.  20,  1520,  and  Sickingen  himself   repeated  his  assurances 
of  support  Nov.  3d.     Letters  in  Walch,  15:  1635-1637. 

2  Strauss,  Ulrich  von  Hutten,  2:  195  seq.    See  also  Hutten's  Beklagung  der  Frei- 
statte  teutscher  Nation,  a  good  specimen  of  his  German  semidoggerel  verse,  Opera, 
5:  383  seq.;  and  his  Ermahnung  an  eine  gemeine  Stadt  Worms,  5:  395.    The  latter 
is  very  pious  in  form,  full  of  texts  of  Scripture,  and  proves  that  he  was  trying 
to  give  to  the  enterprise  of  Sickingen  the  character  of  a  holy  war. 


218  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

a  new  and  better  system  of  law  as  ruler  of  Trier;  and  that  he  would 
have  the  Emperor's  approval  in  his  course.  Possibly,  had  the  attack 
proved  successful,  after  he  had  established  himself  at  Trier  Charles 
might  have  accepted  him  as  de  facto  ruler;  but  he  had  risked  his  cause 
on  a  single  throw  of  the  dice,  and  fortune  was  against  him.  The  Arch- 
bishop, like  many  medieval  prelates,  proved  himself  a  better  secular 
warrior  than  spiritual;  he  had  penetrated  Sickingen's  design  and  pre- 
pared himself  for  the  attack.  Instead  of  finding  an  easy  prey  in  an 
unprepared  town,  the  leader  of  the  knights  found  it  swarming  with 
armed  defenders,  who  repelled  all  his  assaults,  and  he  had  made  no 
preparations  for  a  regular  siege  with  artillery.  This  check  was  as  fatal 
to  the  plans  of  Sickingen  as  it  was  unexpected;  in  his  rashness  he  had 
not  provided  for  defeat,  and  his  retirement  from  Trier  was  the  signal 
for  all  knights  to  desert  the  movement  but  those  who  had  already  com- 
promised themselves  too  deeply.  The  expected  insurrections  in  the 
domains  of  the  princes  did  not  occur;  none  of  the  free  cities  joined  the 
league.  On  the  contrary,  the  ban  of  the  Empire  was  now  laid  on  Sickingen 
once  more,  and  he  was  thus  declared  a  public  enemy.  He  then  did  the 
one  thing  necessary  to  insure  his  complete  downfall,  by  making  an  inroad 
into  the  Palatinate,  burning  and  plundering  as  he  went.  It  thus  became 
evident  to  the  princes  that  they  could  have  no  lasting  peace  but  by 
combining  against  him  as  the  common  foe  and  pursuing  him  to  his 
destruction.  Accordingly,  the  Archbishop  of  Trier,  the  Landgrave  of 
Hesse  and  the  Count  Palatine  formed  an  alliance  pledged  to  quell  this 
revolt  of  the  knights  and  make  an  end  of  their  lawless  leader.  On  April 
29,  1523,  they  laid  siege  to  his  castle  of  Landstuhl,  to  which  he  had 
retired,  battered  down  the  walls  with  artillery,  and,  their  leader  mortally 
wounded,  the  knights  surrendered  May  6th.  Hutten  escaped  and  made 
his  way  to  Switzerland,  where  he  died  not  long  after  in  poverty,  misery  and 
f riendlessness.  In  his  last  days  he  managed  to  alienate  the  one  friend  he 
had  left,  Erasmus,  and  only  the  charity  of  strangers  gave  him  refuge 
and  support  at  the  end. 

The  suppression  of  this  revolt  was  the  signal  for  general  measures 
of  reprisal  and  repression  against  the  knights,  and  marks  the  first  stage 
of  the  great  social  and  political  changes  that  the  Reformation  power- 
fully promoted.  Each  prince  eagerly  seized  on  the  excuse  and  oppor- 
tunity to  subdue  the  neighboring  knights,  with  whom  he  had  long 
been  at  feud,  and  the  result  was  the  total  ruin  and  practical  suppression 
of  the  order.  Only  those  escaped  who  made  their  submission  to  the 
princes  and  were  content  thenceforth  to  take  the  position,  not  of  equals, 
but  of  subject  freeholders.  The  first  attempt  to  use  the  Reformation 
as  a  means  of  social  reorganization  not  only  proved  a  complete  failure,. 


EXEUNT  HUMANISTS  219> 

but  issued  in  the  distinct  strengthening  of  the  hands  of  the  territorial 
princes.  The  system  of  oligarchy  that  had  replaced  the  figment  of 
imperial  power  in  Germany,  became  notably  solidified  as  the  result  of 
this  vain  struggle  of  the  knights  to  recover  their  ancient  position. 

With  a  fortunate  prudence,  Luther  had  kept  aloof  from  this  move- 
ment, and  his  reform  was  in  no  way  compromised  by  the  failure.  It 
was  not  altogether  prudence  that  dictated  this  aloofness,  but  conviction* 
He  saw  early  in  their  acquaintance  that  these  knightly  supporters  of 
the  Reformation  had  no  deep  interest  in  the  only  thing  that  really  in- 
terested him,  the  religious  side  of  the  movement  he  had  begun.  Be- 
sides, he  was  constitutionally  opposed  to  violent  methods  of  advancing 
the  interests  of  religion.  He  did  not  believe  that  the  Gospel  could  be 
propagated  by  the  sword.  While  Hutten  was  writing  his  vehement 
letters  at  the  time  of  the  Diet  of  Worms,  Luther  writes  to  Spalatin: 
"You  see  what  Hutten  wants.  I  would  not  have  the  Gospel  defended 
by  violence  and  murder.  In  this  sense  I  wrote  him.  By  the  word  the 
world  was  conquered,  by  the  word  the  Church  was  preserved,  by  the 
word  she  will  be  restored."  l 

Thus  the  Reformation  was  freed  from  the  first  group  of  Humanists, 
who  went  out  from  the  reformers  because  they  were  not  of  them — 
because  patriotism,  as  they  understood  the  matter,  was  more  to  them 
than  religion.  But  there  was  another  group,  of  whom  Erasmus  was 
the  head  and  type,  who  also  went  out,  but  for  a  different  reason — to 
them  culture  was  more  than  religion.  The  controversy  between  Luther 
and  Erasmus,  therefore,  must  be  looked  on  as  something  more  than  a 
personal  quarrel,  though  the  personal  element  entered  into  it.  It  was 
something  other  than  the  battle  of  two  champions,  one  upholding  the 
Protestant  faith,  the  other  the  Catholic.  It  was  the  conflict  and  the 
final  parting  of  two  opposing  tendencies  that  had  for  some  time  been 
manifesting  themselves  and  crystallizing  into  parties.  The  time  comes 
in  an  age  of  conflict  over  fundamental  principles  when  each  man  must 
decide  for  himself  what  principle  he  will  hold  to  be  of  paramount  im- 
portance, and  having  made  the  choice  he  ranges  himself  accordingly. 
Erasmus  and  those  for  whom  he  spoke  were  Humanists  to  the  core, 
and  only  incidentally,  one  might  almost  say  accidentally,  reformers. 
Accordingly,  they  found  it  easiest,  not  to  say  unavoidable,  to  cast  in 
their  lot  with  the  old  Church,  the  patron  and  promoter  from  the  first 
of  the  new  learning.  Luther  and  those  whom  he  represented  were  first 
of  all  advocates  of  the  gospel  of  salvation  by  faith,  which  they  con- 
sidered the  most  valuable  fruit  of  the  new  learning,  and  they  were 
only  partially  Humanists.  Accordingly,  they  could  no  longer  abide 

1  Letter  of  Jan.  16,  1521.     De  Wette,  1:  543. 


220  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

in  a  Church  that  flouted  the  Gospel  and  stigmatized  as  heretics  those 
who  preached  it.  Both  leaders  were  at  heart  conservatives,  and  had 
not  circumstances  brought  Luther  into  personal  antagonism  to  the 
Papacy  and  made  him  a  rebel  of  necessity,  not  of  choice,  he  would  never 
have  left  the  old  Church.  Erasmus,  being  under  no  such  compulsion, 
took  the  road  that  Luther  himself  would  have  taken  had  liberty  of 
choice  been  allowed  him. 

It  is  the  custom  to  speak  of  Erasmus  as  timid,  vacillating,  double- 
tongued,  lacking  the  martyr's  spirit,1  time-serving,  vain,  loving  and 
seeking  the  praise  of  men — nearly  all  of  which  is  true,  though  perhaps 
it  should  not  be  said  without  some  qualification,  certainly  not  without 
taking  some  account  of  noble  qualities  in  his  nature.  His  conduct 
toward  Luther  gives  no  sufficient  grounds  for  criticism,  except  on  the 
assumption  that  he  was  at  heart  a  believer  in  all  Luther's  doctrines  and 
an  approver  of  all  Luther's  methods.  It  is  no  great  proof  of  cowardice 
that  a  man  is  not  willing  to  die  for  a  doctrine. that  he  does  not  believe; 
or  of  inconsistency  for  him  to  break  with  a  party  to  which  he  never  really 
belonged.  Nor  yet  was  it  a  great  or  a  singular  offense  that  Erasmus  did 
not  submit  himself  to  Luther's  leading;  he  had  so  long  been  a  leader 
himself.2 

Already,  as  occasion  has  offered,  the  services  of  Erasmus  to  Luther 
have  been  indicated.  It  will  not  be  amiss  to  notice  more  in  detail  the 
relations  of  these  two  remarkable  men  to  each  other.  And  it  so  happens 
that  we  have  ample  means  of  knowing  what  Luther  thought  of  Erasmus, 
and  what  Erasmus  thought  of  Luther.  At  first  it  is  evident  that  Erasmus 
was  disposed  to  extend  to  Luther  that  favor  and  patronage  which  he 
extended  to  so  many  bright,  studious  men  of  his  time.  Others  had  been 
flattered,  pleased,  stimulated,  guided  by  his  encouragement  and  advice, 
and  he  thought  to  help  Luther,  too.  He  had  reached  that  elevation 
from  which  it  was  natural  for  him  to  regard  others  as  pupils  to  be  in- 
structed, rather  than  as  equals  with  whom  to  hold  conference. 

But  this  was  an  impossible  relation  between  him  and  Luther,  as  he 
would  have  seen  if  he  had  had  discernment  enough  to  recognize  in  the 
reformer  a  spirit,  if  not  a  mind,  superior  to  his  own.  He  did  not  read 
Luther's  books  (so  he  often  said)  not  because  he  was  afraid  to  read  them, 
but  because  he  did  not  think  it  worth  while,  except,  indeed,  to  know 
what  to  think  of  Luther.  In  a  long  letter  written  to  Cardinal  Cam- 

1  A  passage  from  a  letter  to  Cardinal  Campeggio  io  quoted  against  him:  "Let 
others  seek  for  martyrdom,  I  do  not  think  myself  worthy  of  that  honor."    But  a 
few  years  later  he  modified  this  sentiment  into  the  following:  "I  would  gladly  be 
a  martyr  for  Christ,  if  he  would  give  me  strength,  but  I  am  not  willing  to  be  a 
martyr  for  Luther." 

2  We  may  well  recall  that  Reuchlin,  the  great  Hebraist,  refused  to  follow  Luther, 
and  Staupitz  would  not  (or  could  not)  go  all  the  way  with  him. 


EXEUNT  HUMANISTS  221 

peggio,  dated  December  6,  1520,  after  Luther's  excommunication  was 
everywhere  known,  and  just  four  days  before  Luther  burned  the  bull, 
he  says:  "Of  all  Luther's  books  I  have  not  read  twelve  pages;  and  then 
only  by  paragraphs  here  and  there;  and  yet  from  these,  rather  dipped 
into  than  read,  I  seemed  to  myself  to  recognize  rare  gifts  of  nature  and 
a  genius  admirably  adapted  to  expound  literature  according  to  the 
ancient  method."  The  impression  made  by  his  own  slight  examination 
of  them  was  strengthened  by  the  opinion  that  others  had  formed  of 
Luther's  writings.  "I  have  heard,"  he  said,  still  writing  to  Cam- 
peggio,  "that  distinguished  men,  men  of  approved  doctrine  and  life, 
have  congratulated  themselves  that  they  have  fallen  in  with  his  books." 
Here  then  was  just  such  a  fine  genius  as  Erasmus  loved  to  patronize. 
He  would  rejoice  to  number  him  among  his  friends  and  admirers.  He 
would  treat  him  as  he  treated  Zwingli,  Jonas,  Melanchthon  and  others. 

But  besides  the  personal  interest  that  drew  Erasmus  to  Luther,  there 
was  a  general  interest  arising  from  the  attitude  of  the  two  parties, 
Lutheran  and  anti-Lutheran,  toward  literature.  "It  happened,"  said 
Erasmus,  "by  what  chance  I  know  not,  that  in  the  beginning  those  who 
opposed  Luther  were  the  enemies  of  good  learning,  and  on  that  account 
the  friends  of  learning  were  less  hostile  to  him,  because  they  were  afraid 
that  they  might  strengthen  their  own  adversaries  by  taking  the  part  of 
his."  In  fact  he  thought  that  in  the  first  instance  opposition  to  Luther 
was  merely  opposition  to  learning.  He  quotes  with  approbation  what 
was  said  by  John  Faber:  "We  ought  to  consider  the  fount  and  source 
of  this  uproar:  it  is  manifestly  the  hatred  of  learning,  which,  with  malicious 
cunning,  they  are  endeavoring  to  mix  with  Luther's  business."  l 

In  this  matter,  too,  "the  cold  and  timid  scholar"  was  influenced  by 
a  fine  sense  of  justice  and  fair  play.  "To  this  extent,"  he  said,  "I 
favored  Luther,  that  I  was  unwilling  that  he  should  be  given  up  to  the 
will  of  certain  men,  who  on  any  and  every  pretext  strove  to  subvert 
good  learning;  and  yet  I  did  not  so  favor  him  as  not  to  wish  him  to  be 
overcome  by  the  testimony  of  Scripture — to  be  refuted  by  arguments, 
if  he  deserved  to  be  refuted.  Noble  natures  desire  to  be  taught,  they 
do  not  endure  to  be  put  down  by  force.  It  is  the  part  of  theologians 
to  teach,  of  tyrants  to  coerce.  I  so  favored  Luther  as  to  wish  that  he 
be  corrected  and  not  destroyed,  reclaimed  and  not  blotted  out,  if  in 
anything  he  erred.  And  all  who  have  ever  written  have  erred,  save  only 
the  sacred  Scriptures!  In  this  way  I  think  that  to-day  all  upright  men 
favor  Luther,  yea,  even  the  Pope  himself.  Cyprian  loved  the  books 
and  genius  of  Tertullian,  although  he  did  not  agree  with  him  in  all  his 
teachings.  Jerome  loved  the  genius  of  Origen  although  he  did  not  favor 

1  Erasmus,  Op.  3:  594-901. 


222  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

his  condemned  opinions.1  I  do  not  wish  these  examples  to  be  taken  to 
Luther's  injury.  I  pronounce  no  judgment  on  him  either  way;  he  has 
his  judges.  Just  as  my  praise  would  not  help  him,  so  I  do  not  wish 
him  to  be  injured  by  it  if  in  anything  I  differ  from  him.  ...  No  one  ad- 
monished him  in  a  brotherly  way;  no  one  tried  to  hold  him  back;  no 
one  taught  him;  no  one  sought  to  refute  him.  They  only  shouted  that 
a  new  heretic  had  arisen,  who  taught  that  it  was  not  necessary  to  confess 
all  mortal  sins!  ...  A  terrific  bull  was  sent  forth  against  him  in  the 
name  of  the  Roman  Pontiff.  Copies  of  it  were  burned;  there  was  a 
tumult  of  the  people;  the  thing  could  not  have  been  more  odious.  The 
bull  was  too  severe  in  the  judgment  of  all.  It  was  made  more  severe 
by  the  additions  of  those  who  were  to  execute  it."  So  Erasmus  wrote 
to  Campeggio  in  December,  1520.  Even  after  the  Diet  of  Worms  his 
sympathies  were  still  with  Luther.  "The  report  here  is,"  he  wrote  to 
Jonas,  "that  you  stood  by  Martin  Luther  at  Worms.  No  doubt  you 
did  so,  just  as  I  should  have  done  had  I  been  there,  that  this  tragedy 
might  be  so  settled  by  moderate  counsels  that  it  would  not  afterwards 
break  out  again  with  greater  injury  to  the  world.  And  I  wonder  that 
this  was  not  done,  sirice  the  best  men  greatly  desired  that  the  tranquillity 
of  the  Church  should  be  the  matter  of  chief  concern."2 

Erasmus  was  far  more  bitter  against  the  opponents  of  Luther  than  he 
ever  became  against  Luther  himself.  His  quarrel  with  them  was  of  long 
standing:  he  hated  them  before  Luther  became  known,  and  continued 
to  hate  them  to  the  end.  Their  ignorance,  narrowness,  and  intolerance 
aroused  in  him  a  contemptuous  scorn.  He  did  not  spare  them,  as  they 
did  not  spare  him.  With  them,  he  was  the  favorer  of  heresy;  with  him, 
they  were  the  enemies  of  "good  letters,"  which  they  had  not  learned 
in  youth  and  afterwards  had  not  time  to  learn.  They  misunderstood 
him,  perverted  his  language,  misrepresented  him,  talked  against  him.a 
It  happened  with  them  as  it  has  too  often  happened  with  men  of  their 
kind:  regarding  themselves  as  the  peculiar  defenders  of  Christianity, 
they  supposed  that  whoever  was  against  them  was  against  the  truth, 
in  defense  of  which  they  were  not  always  careful  to  tell  the  truth,  and 
were  deaf  to  the  commonest  dictates  of  charity  and  justice.  To  his 

1  In  asking  for  Tertullian's  works  Cyprian  was  in  the  habit  of  saying,  Da  mihi 
magistrum,  give  me  my  teacher.  Jerome  says  of  Origen:  "The  city  of  Rome 
herself  compelled  the  senate  to  go  against  this  man,  not  on  account  of  the  novelty 
of  his  doctrine,  not  on  account  of  his  heresy,  as  the  mad  dogs  (rabidi  canes)  now 
pretend,  but  because  they  could  not  endure  the  glory  of  his  eloquence  and  learn- 
ing, and  because  when  he  was  speaking  all  others  seemed  to  be  dumb."  Mosheim,. 
Ch.  Hist.,  1:  187. 

*  Letter  to  Justus  Jonas,  May  10,  1521.     Op.  3:  639-643. 

3  In  a  letter  to  Campeggio  he  says,  "They  do  not  fear  from  the  sacred  desk  to. 
attack  the  fame  of  those  by  whose  industry  polite  studies  have  been  advanced, 
among  whom  they  place  Erasmus." 


EXEUNT  HUMANISTS  223 

sympathy  with  outraged  learning  Erasmus  added  a  deep  sense  of  per- 
sonal injury.  But  his  interest  was  not  with  literature  alone;  he  was 
keenly,  sorrowfully,  indignantly  alive  to  the  religious  degradation  of 
his  times.  After  mentioning  the  corruptions  of  other  ages  he  adds: 
"But  I  do  not  know  that  the  leaders  of  the  Church  ever  so  eagerly 
and  so  openly  yearned  after  the  goods  of  this  world,  which  Christ  taught 
us  to  despise,  as  they  do  now.  Scriptural  studies  have  sunk  very  low; 
it  is  no  better  with  morals;  sacred  literature  is  enslaved  to  human  cu- 
pidity; the  credulity  of  the  people  is  turned  to  the  gain  of  the  few.  Pious 
souls,  to  whom  nothing  is  more  precious  than  the  glory  of  Christ,  are 
groaning.  This  brought  it  about  that  at  the  beginning  Luther  had  every- 
where such  favor  as  I  think  had  not  happened  to  anyone  for  ages.  As 
we  easily  believe  what  we  greatly  wish,  men  thought  there  had  arisen 
a  man  who,  pure  from  the  desires  of  this  world,  could  bring  some  remedy 
to  so  great  evils.  Nor  indeed  should  I  have  despaired  of  such  a  result 
if,  at  the  very  first  taste  of  the  little  books  that  began  to  come  out  in 
Luther's  name,  I  had  not  feared  that  the  affair  would  end  in  tumult 
and  open  division  of  the  world." 

He  condemned  both  the  aims  and  the  methods  of  the  extreme  papal 
party.  He  had  nothing  in  common  with  them.  He  approved  Luther's 
aims,  he  condemned  his  methods.  It  was  not  his  business,  he  said, 
to  give  an  opinion  as  to  the  truth  of  what  Luther  taught;  but  certainly 
the  latter's  manner  and  spirit  in  carrying  on  the  controversy  he  did 
not  at  all  approve.  Therefore,  he  said,  I  admonished  Luther  himself 
and  also  those  of  his  friends  whose  authority  I  thought  would  be  of 
weight  with  him.  What  advice  they  gave  him  I  know  not;  but  the 
affair  was  so  managed  that  there  was  danger  that  the  evil  would  be 
doubled  and  intensified  by  remedies  wrongly  tried.  Since  the  truth 
is  itself  bitter  to  most  persons;  since  it  is  in  itself  seditious  to  overturn 
things  established  by  long  use,  it  is  wiser  to  soften  the  natural  difficulty 
of  it  by  civility  of  treatment  than  to  pile  up  hatred  on  hatred.  Luther 
had  violated  all  maxims  of  prudence.  He  had  not  imitated  the  gentle- 
ness of  Christ  and  his  apostles  with  their  opponents ;  which  gentleness  of 
teaching,  which  prudence  in  dispensing  the  divine  word,  took  the  world; 
and  what  no  arms,  no  sublety  of  philosophy,  no  elegance  of  rhetoric, 
no  strength  or  art  of  man  could  do,  forced  it  under  the  yoke  of  Christ. 

Erasmus  was  not  willing  to  acknowledge,  as  some  claimed,  that  the 
disease  of  the  age  was  too  great  to  be  cured  by  gentle  remedies.  God 
in  dealing  with  men  sometimes  uses  severity;  but  this  does  not  give 
men  any  excuse  for  doing  the  same  thing.  Many  men,  he  said,  would 
be  less  evil  if  they  were  robbed  of  their  riches,  but  it  is  not  the  part  of 
a  good  man  to  rob  them  in  order  to  make  them  better.  Luther  gratui- 


224  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

tously  magnified  the  differences  between  him  and  others,  when  it  was 
the  part  of  wisdom  and  prudence  to  make  them  seem  as  slight  as  pos- 
sible. It  was  no  excuse,  as  some  said,  that  he  was  provoked  by  his 
adversaries;  he  ought  to  have  restrained  himself.  Some  excuse  him  for 
not  submitting  himself  to  the  judgment  of  Leo  X,  a  very  merciful  Pope, 
or  to  that  of  the  Emperor,  an  excellent  and  compassionate  prince,  after 
he  had  been  driven  by  an  impulse  from  without  to  write  too  bitterly. 
But  why  did  he  rather  listen  to  those  who  thus  advised  than  to  other 
friends,  men  of  learning  and  experience,  who  advised  the  opposite? 
Already  many  of  his  special  favorers  were  striving  to  help  him  with 
ridiculous  books  and  idle  threats,  as  if  trifles  of  that  kind  either  terrify 
adversaries  or  please  good  men,  according  to  whose  judgment  every- 
thing that  is  to  have  a  good  end  must  at  last  be  decided.  Their  rashness 
had  brought  in  an  army  of  evils;  it  had  put  a  burden  of  odium  on  good 
men,  who  in  the  beginning  had  not  been  unfavorable  to  Luther,  because 
they  hoped  he  would  treat  the  matter  differently  or  because  his  enemies 
were  the  same. 

Erasmus  complains  of  the  use  that  had  been  made  of  his  letters. 
They  were  private  and  sent  under  seal,  but  notwithstanding  they  were 
immediately  published.  Things  that  he  wrote  long  ago  were  brought 
out  and  perverted,  and  he  was  made  to  appear  a  friend  of  tumult  and 
disorder.  To  speak  candidly,  he  said,  if  I  had  foreseen  that  such  a  time 
would  come.  I  either  would  not  have  written  what  I  wrote  or  I  should 
have  written  differently.  Nothing  is  more  hateful  to  me  than  con- 
spiracy, schism,  faction.  This  whole  business,  whatever  it  is,  was  begun 
against  my  remonstrance  and  certainly  with  my  constant  condemnation 
of  the  manner  of  it.  It  is  very  far  from  my  wish  to  be  mixed  up  with  so 
dangerous  a  faction,  and  I  wish  that  they  would  be  prudent  who  think 
that  with  such  acts  as  they  are  using  they  can  allure  anyone  to  their 
camp.  If  they  wished  to  drive  off  anyone  who  is  favorable,  what  better 
means  could  they  employ?  In  such  a  way  he  wrote  to  Jonas,  whom  he 
commended  for  favoring  Luther  at  Worms. 

As  matters  progressed,  the  fears  of  Erasmus  increased;  his  disappro- 
bation of  Lutheran  methods  became  more  decided.  He  poured  out  his 
heart  to  Melanchthon.  He  said,  I  do  not  know  what  kind  of  a  Church 
that  of  yours  is;  but  there  are  men  in  it  who,  I  fear,  will  turn  everything 
upside  down  and  compel  the  princes  to  restrain  both  the  good  and  evil 
by  force.  With  their  mouths  they  are  always  saying  "the  gospel," 
"the  word  of  God,"  "faith,"  "charity,"  "Christ,"  "the  Spirit."  Their 
conduct  says  something  very  different.  Have  we  driven  out  our  Lords 
and  Popes  and  bishops,  to  bring  in  harder  tyrants?  Who  could  per- 
suade himself  that  they  were  actuated  by  the  Spirit  of  Christ,  whose 


EXEUNT  HUMANISTS  225 

conduct  so  differs  from  the  doctrine  of  Christ?  "Once  the  Gospel  made 
ferocious  men  gentle,  rapacious  men  considerate,  turbulent  men  peaceful, 
abusive  men  gentle-speaking;  these  men  are  made  ferocious,  they  seize 
the  goods  of  others  by  fraud,  they  excite  tumults,  they  speak  evil  of 
the  most  deserving.  I  see  new  hypocrites,  new  tyrants,  not  even  a 
shred  of  the  spirit  of  the  Gospel.  If  I  were  the  most  ardent  follower  of 
Luther,  I  would  hate  them  worse  than  I  do  hate  them  for  the  Gospel's 
sake,  which  their  evil  conduct  brings  into  reproach;  and  for  learning's 
sake,  which  they  utterly  destroy."1  Melanchthon  in  his  reply  virtually 
confesses  the  justice  of  what  Erasmus  says,  but  he  would  separate  the 
cause  itself  from  the  conduct  of  its  advocates.  "  I  beseech  you,  Erasmus," 
he  says,  "in  the  first  place  not  to  believe  that  Luther  acts  with  those  whose 
morals  you  justly  blame;  and  in  the  second  place,  not  to  be  less  favorable 
to  the  doctrine  because  of  the  folly  and  rashness  of  certain  men." 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  Erasmus  reckoned  himself  among  those 
who  at  first  were  favorable  to  Luther.  He  rendered  Luther's  cause  great 
and  valuable  service.  He  has  told  what  it  was  that  alienated  him. 
Upon  occasion  he  himself  knew  how  to  wield  a  bitter  pen,  but  that  was 
in  his  own  defense,  in  opposition  to  those  who  had  wronged  him  or 
learning.  In  Luther's  matters  he  was  a  spectator,  a  judge,  not  a  partisan. 
Suppose  Luther  had  followed  his  advice ;  had  used  his  gentler  methods? 
Was  Erasmus  right?  Was  Luther  wrong?  We  may  answer  both  these 
questions  affirmatively,  but  at  the  same  time  it  is  probable  that  on 
Erasmus'  plan  the  Reformation  never  would  have  gone  forward;  on 
Luther's  it  succeeded.  It  is  greatly  better  that  men  should  be  kind  and 
just  and  fair-minded  and  without  passion  in  advocating  truth;  this 
is  the  ideal  way  of  correcting  wrongs  and  establishing  right.  But,  as  a 
rule,  in  order  to  the  successful  working  of  this  plan,  it  must  be  tried 
in  an  ideal  community.  The  other  plan,  involving  injustice,  hardship, 
prejudice,  hatred,  all  evil  human  passions,  is  the  usual  plan  of  successful 
revolutions;  it  is  the  plan  that  adjusts  itself  to  ordinary  human  conditions. 
But  although  it  is  successful,  the  wrong  of  all  kinds  that  it  permits  or 
requires  does  not  go  unavenged — the  suffering  of  the  reformed  com- 
munity is  itself  a  kind  of  expiation  of  the  sin  of  the  reforming  methods. 
And  by  such  methods,  for  the  most  part,  men  only  clear  the  way  for 
the  working  of  other  and  better  methods.  They  reach  only  partial 
results;  they  leave  wounds  that  gentleness  and  time  must  heal;  they 
cause  dislocations  that  only  patience  and  wisdom  can  right;  they  oc- 
casion sorrows  for  which  there  is  no  solace  in  this  world.  The  body  politic, 
like  the  natural  body,  is  healed  only  by  suffering.  When  the  impetuous 

1  Letter  dated  Basel,  Sept.  6,  1524.  Op.  3:  817-820.  Melanchthon's  reply  is 
given  in  cols.  820,  821;  also  in  CR,  1:  674,  where  it  is  dated  September  30th  (prob- 
ably correct)  while  the  editor  of  Erasmus  has  made  the  date  October  30th. 


226  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

Luther  has  gone  before,  the  work  is  not  complete  until  the  thoughtful 
and  more  cautious  Erasmus  has  followed  after.  Alas  for  the  earth  if 
the  sunshine  did  not  follow  the  storm! 

The  two  men  were  very  different  in  spirit  and  methods,  but  there 
was  so  much  of  Luther's  work  with  which  Erasmus  sympathized  that  it 
was  only  in  time  and  with  difficulty  that  he  could  break  entirely  with 
him.  He  had  befriended  Luther  with  danger  to  himself.  He  taught 
some  things  tentatively  and  with  reserve;  Luther  taught  the  same 
things  positively  and  without  reservation.  In  many  quarters  all  the 
odium  that  attached  to  Luther  was  carried  over  to  him.  He  was  made 
responsible  for  doctrines  that  he  did  not  hold,  or  that  he  held  only  with 
qualifications.  His  situation  was  not  pleasant.  All  the  while  he  sought 
to  maintain  friendly  relations  with  both  parties.  He  wrote  to  Pope 
Adrian  VI  congratulating  him  on  bis  elevation  to  the  Papacy,  and  offering 
to  make  suggestions  how  the  difficulties  in  Germany  might  be  removed, 
with  the  understanding  that  what  he  should  say  should  be  known  only 
to  himself  and  the  Pope.  Adrian  replied  to  his  letter,  urging  him  to 
write  against  Luther  and  asking  for  the  promised  advice. 

The  correspondence  with  the  Pope  is  interesting  and  honorable  to 
Erasmus.  AoMan  said:  "We  do  not  omit  to  exhort  you  to  use  against 
these  new  heresies  that  most  felicitous  pen  which  is  yours  by  the  favor 
of  God.  For  many  reasons  you  ought  to  think  that  this  duty  has  been 
especially  reserved  for  you.  You  have  great  force  of  genius,  varied 
learning,  and  readiness  in  writing,  such  as  belong  to  few,  not  to  say  more. 
Besides,  you  have  great  authority  and  favor  in  those  nations  in  which 
the  evil  arose.  You  ought  to  use  these  gifts  in  defense  of  the  faith,  and 
of  the  honor  of  God,  by  whose  kindness  alone  they  have  been  bestowed 
on  you."  Nothing,  he  thought,  could  be  more  grateful  to  God,  or  more 
worthy  of  Erasmus's  genius,  than  such  a  service.  Erasmus  in  reply 
wished  that  he  had  the  ability  that  the  Pope  attributed  to  him.  He 
would  not  hesitate  to  heal  the  public  evils  even  by  the  sacrifice  of  his 
life.  But  his  authority  would  avail  nothing  with  those  who  had  despised 
the  authority  of  the  university  of  Paris.  Besides,  he  had  lost  credit. 
There  had  been  a  time  when  men  praised  him,  calling  him  a  great  hero, 
the  Prince  of  Letters,  the  Star  of  Germany,  etc.  They  use  different 
language  to  him  now.  Then,  the  thing  to  be  done  was  very  difficult. 
He  would  not  dare  to  tell  the  Pope  in  how  many  places,  and  how  deeply- 
the  favor  of  Luther,  and  at  the  same  time  hatred  of  the  Pope,  had  been 
fixed  in  the  public  mind.  Among  those  who  favored  Luther  were  favorers 
of  learning;  he  wished  it  was  not  so,  but  so  it  was.  He  had  had  the 
sweetest  fellowship  with  all  learned  men;  he  would  rather  die  than  lose 
their  friendship,  and  at  the  same  time  bring  hatred  on  himself.  And  yet 


EXEUNT  HUMANISTS  227, 

he  would  do  this  rather  than  seem  factious.  He  had  in  many  ways  shown 
that  he  was  not  a  favorer  of  Luther,  and  had  dissuaded  men  from  favoring 
him;  but  while  he  was  discouraging  heresy  in  Germany  he  was  slandered 
at  Rome,  called  a  heretic,  an  arch-heretic,  a  schismatic,  a  liar.  What, 
he  says,  can  be  more  unhappy  than  my  condition,  striving  day  and  night 
for  the  good  of  both  parties  and  hated  and  wounded  by  both!  He  had 
his  views  as  to  what  should  be  done.  Many  wished  to  try  the  virtue  of 
severity;  the  result  would  prove  that  such  counsel  was  bad.  I  see, 
he  said,  more  danger  than  I  could  wish  that  the  affair  will  end  in  bloody 
slaughter.  I  do  not  inquire  what  punishment  may  be  due  to  heretics, 
but  what  makes  for  the  public  peace.  The  evil  is  too  deep-seated,  has 
spread  too  far,  to  be  healed  by  cutting  and  burning.  The  example 
of  Wiclif  and  others  whose  party  was  suppressed  by  harsh  measures 
was  not  pertinent  to  this  case;  the  circumstances  were  different.  The 
Pope  wishes  to  heal  rather  than  destroy — if  all  were  like  him  something 
might  be  done.  First  the  causes  of  the  evil  must  be  ascertained  and  re- 
moved. Then  forgiveness  must  be  granted  to  those  who  by  the  influence 
and  persuasion  of  others  have  been  led  into  error.  Then  the  world 
must  have  hope  that  the  burdens  of  which  the  people  complained 
would  be  taken  off.  He  thought,  too,  that  novelties  of  little  importance, 
yet  creating  disturbance,  ought  to  be  forbidden  by  the  rulers  and  that 
some  restriction  should  be  placed  on  printing. 

This  was  the  plan  of  Erasmus;  there  is  nothing  new  in  it.  He  wrote 
to  Melanchthon  that  the  Pope  did  not  take  his  advice  hi  good  part. 
It  is  of  greater  value  to  us  than  it  was  to  the  Pope;  it  confirms  our  knowl- 
edge from  other  sources  and  proves  how  general  and  how  severe  was  the 
revolt,  how  real  the  difficulties  of  the  situation  were,  and  how  consistently 
Erasmus  opposed  those  who  counselled  violence  against  Luther.1 

We  have  seen  how  Erasmus  wrote  to  representative  men  on  either 
side.  In  his  letters  to  Jonas  and  Melanchthon  he  mentions  freely  the 
things  that  displeased  him  in  Luther  and  his  followers;  in  the  letters 
to  Campeggio,  a  prominent  agent  on  the  papal  side,  he  does  not  spare 
the  Pope;  and  if  he  is  careful,  in  writing  to  the  Pope,  to  disclaim  all  con- 
nection with  Luther,  he  is  yet  free  to  say  that  the  blame  is  not  all  on 
Luther's  side.  There  is  little  or  nothing  in  the  later  letters  that  may 
not  be  found  in  the  earlier.  It  is  true,  however,  that  as  time  passed  on 
these  fears  increased  and  his  hopes  waned.  At  first,  things  that  he  had 
in  common  with  Luther  were  more  than  those  in  which  they  differed; 

1  The  correspondence  was  as  follows:  Erasmus  to  Adrian,  congratulation,  dated 
Aug.  1,  1522.  Op.  3:  721;  Adrian's  reply,  Dec.  1,  1522  (735);  Erasmus,  brief 
letter,  Dec.  22  (737) ;  Adrian  urges  Erasmus  to  write,  Jan.  23,  1523  (744) ;  Erasmus 
replies  at  length,  in  the  letter  from  which  the  above  quotations  and  summary  are 
taken — a  letter  undated  and  incomplete  (745-748). 


228  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

at  last  the  proportion  was  changed,  and  the  antagonisms  were  in  the 
ascendant.  And  this  is  not  strange — things  were  constantly  moving; 
the  Lutheran  party  was  all  the  while  becoming  more  radical  and  revo- 
lutionary. It  every  day  became  more  apparent  that  there  was  to  be  a 
schism  in  the  Church,  and  Erasmus  must  go  with  the  new  party  or 
remain  with  the  old.  He  had  reached  that  time  of  life  when  men  hesitate 
to  make  changes  in  their  party  connections.  He  had  himself  long  been 
a  leader,  accustomed  to  have  men  defer  to  his  opinion  and  judgment, 
and  should  he  go  with  the  Lutherans  he  must  take  second  place  and 
become  a  follower  of  Luther.  From  the  first  Luther  had  stood  aloof 
from  him,  unwilling  to  be  patronized  by  him,  and  thought  that  Erasmus 
was  playing  the  part  of  protector.1  With  subtle  intuition  he  at  once 
understood  that  he  and  Erasmus  might  be  friends  and  allies,  never 
disciple  and  teacher.  As  time  went  on  he  despaired  of  an  alliance,  and 
only  asked  that  they  might  not  be  enemies;  he  besought  Erasmus  not 
to  write  against  him,,  and  he  would  not  write  against  Erasmus;2  but  in 
the  very  letter  in  which  he  made  this  request  he  could  not  refrain  from 
speaking  to  the  great  scholar  in  a  lofty  tone  of  compassion.  No  one, 
he  said,  could  deny  the  beneficial  influence  of  learning,  or  the  influence 
of  Erasmus  in  promoting  the  intelligent  study  of  the  Bible;  God  had 
bestowed  on  him  a  magnificent  and  peculiar  gift  for  which  thanks  should 
be  given.  But,  he  continued,  I  have  never  desired  that  you  should 
go  out  of  your  sphere  and  mix  yourself  up  with  my  business.  Although 
your  genius  and  eloquence  might  be  of  great  service  to  my  cause,  yet, 
since  you  have  no  heart  for  it,  it  would  be  safer  for  you  to  follow  your 
own  bent.  He  did  not  wish  his  friends  to  worry  Erasmus,  but  permit 
him  to  spend  his  old  age  in  peace;  and  that,  he  said,  "in  my  opinion 
they  would  certainly  do,  if  only  they  should  take  into  account  your 
weakness,  and  consider  the  greatness  of  the  cause,  which  has  long  since 
gone  beyond  your  little  measure  (modulum  tuum)."  God,  he  thought, 
had  not  given  Erasmus  the  gift  of  fortitude.  Erasmus  replied  that  he 
was  acting  more  in  the  interest  of  the  Gospel  than  many  of  those  who 
were  boasting  that  they  were  its  peculiar  champions.  "I  see,"  he  said, 
"that  many  abandoned  and  seditious  men  have  arisen;  I  see  that  disci- 
pline and  good  learning  are  going  to  destruction.  I  see  that  friendships 

1  In  reference  to  Erasmus's  letter  to  the  Archbishop  of  Mainz  in  1529,  Luther 
wrote  to  John  Lange:  Egregie  me  tutatur,  ita  tamen  ut  nihil  munus  quam  me  tutari  vid- 
eatur,  sicut  solet  pro  dexteritate  sua.    Jan.  16,  1520. 

2  "In  the  meantime,  this  I  ask  of  you,  that,  if  you  can  do  no  other  service,  you 
will  at  least  be  only  a  spectator  of  our  tragedy;  that  you  will  not  join  your  forces 
to  our  adversaries;  especially  that  you  will  not  publish  books  against  me,  just  as -I 
will  not  publish  against  you."     Luther's  letter  is   given  in  Erasmus  Op.  3:  846, 
merely  dated  1524;  De  Wette  dates  in  April,  2:  498.     Erasmus   replied   under 
date  of  April  11,  1525,  an  entire  year  later,  Op.  3:  926.    Meanwhile,  his  book  had 
been  published,  September,  1524. 


EXEUNT  HUMANISTS  229 

are  sundered,  and  I  fear  that  bloody  tumults  will  arise."1  "If,"  he 
said,  "you  are  prepared  to  give  to  every  man  a  reason  for  the  hope  that 
is  in  you,  why  should  you  take  it  ill  if  anyone  for  the  sake  of  learning 
should  dispute  with  you?  Perchance  Erasmus  writing  against  you 
would  do  more  for  the  Gospel  than  certain  fools  who  write  for  you." 

When  the  relations  between  them  had  become  so  strained,  it  was 
impossible  that  the  two  men  should  not  after  a  time  become  mutually 
hostile.  Both  sides  had  sought  the  help  of  Erasmus,  and  one  had  an 
apparently  good  claim  to  his  aid,  since  he  claimed  its  protection  and 
patronage.  His  position  in  the  Roman  Church  was  becoming  untenable, 
unless  he  made  it  manifest  that  he  had  quite  broken  with  Luther.  Even 
his  scholarship  was  questioned  by  his  enemies — as  he  writes  to  his  friend 
Archbishop  Warham,  people  in  Rome  were  beginning  to  call  him  Erras- 
mus.  They  accused  him  of  being  the  real  author  of  the  Reformation: 
"Erasmus  laid  the  egg;  Luther  hatched  it."  He  admitted  that  there 
was  some  justice  in  the  charge,  but,  said  he,  "I  laid  a  cock's  egg;  Luther 
has  hatched  a  pullet  of  a  very  different  breed."2  At  length  he  yielded 
to  solicitation  and  wrote  against  Luther  his  Diatribe  de  Liber o  Arbitrior 
which  was  published  in  September,  1524.3 

Erasmus  was  a  great  scholar  and  man  of  letters,  but  he  was  not  a  great 
theologian  and  he  had  neither  native  gifts  nor  acquired  skill  in  meta- 
physical discussion.  He  did  not  therefore  produce  a  book  of  much  value 
on  this  subject;  only  in  its  elegant  latinity  was  it  worthy  of  the  fame  of 
such  a  scholar.  But  it  required  no  profound  theological  learning  or 
philosophical  acumen  to  detect  the  most  vulnerable  point  in  the  writings 
of  Luther  prior  to  this  time.  That  was  undoubtedly  his  extreme  Augus- 
tinianism,  especially  the  crude  statements  that  he  had  repeatedly  made 
about  the  human  will,  in  which  he  went  far  beyond  Augustine,  if  not 
in  actual  teaching,  certainly  in  boldness  and  extravagance.  It  was  the 
old  question,  the  question  that  Eck  and  Carlstadt  had  discussed  at 
Leipzig,  and  which  has  so  often  been  discussed  before  and  since,  and  which 
always  will  be  discussed,  because  it  has  to  do  with  an  insoluble  problem 
which  men  will  nevertheless  forever  strive  to  solve.  "Whatever  is 
done  by  us,  is  done,  not  by  free  will  but  by  pure  necessity."  "The 
free  will  is  merely  passive  in  every  act  of  its  own  that  is  called  willing; 
for  the  will  is  carried  along  and  borne  forward  by  grace."  "It  is  in  no 

1  Erasmus's  mentioning  the  sundering  of  friendships  will  remind  the  reader  of 
the  celebrated  case  of  Burke  and  Fox,  who,  after  having  been  friends  for  more 
than  twenty  years,  were  divided  by  differences  of  opinion  about  the  French  Revo- 
lution. Burke's  pathetic  remark  that  "he  was  sacrificing  his  oldest  friendship 
at  an  age  when  friendships  could  not  be  replaced,"  may  apply  to  Erasmus.  See 


ovem  gallinaceum,  Lutherus 
issimillimum.     Op.,  3:  840. 
3  Op.,  9:  1215-1247. 


230  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

one's  hand,  whether  he  will  think  of  evil  or  of  good;  but  all  things  are 
from  God,  against  whom  we  are  able  to  do  nothing  except  in  so  far  as 
he  permits,  or  himself  does  the  deed."  These  are  fair  specimens  of 
Luther's  reckless  assertions,  the  last  of  which  explicitly  makes  God  the 
author  of  men's  evil  thoughts  and  deeds. 

Erasmus  had  little  difficulty  in  pointing  out  Luther's  error  and  in 
showing  that  such  a  doctrine  of  the  will  is  incompatible  with  reason, 
experience  and  the  general  tenor  of  Scripture,  as  well  as  with  many 
specific  passages.  He  was  much  less  successful  in  his  attempt  to  expound 
a  better  doctrine,  but  he  set  forth  very  fairly  the  moderate  anti-Augus- 
tinian  or  semi-Pelagian  view  that  prevailed  among  Catholic  theologians 
of  his  day.  He  was  perhaps  happiest  in  pointing  out  the  practical  dif- 
ficulties of  the  Lutheran  theory:  If  the  will  of  man  is  not  free  to  choose 
the  good,  who  will  try  to  live  a  good  life?  What  is  the  meaning  of  God's 
law,  if  men  cannot  obey?  How  can  God  punish  or  reward  those  who 
cannot  choose  between  good  and  evil,  but  merely  do  what  they  must? 
His  decision  between  the  two  opposing  principles  was  a  hesitating  com- 
promise: "In  the  same  individual  act,  two  causes  work  together,  the 
grace  of  God  and  the  will  of  man,  grace  being  the  principal  cause  and 
the  will  the  secondary  cause  which  of  itself  can  do  nothing."  "I  prefer," 
he  concludes,  "the  opinion  of  those  who  attribute  something  to  free 
will,  but  a  great  deal  to  grace."  This  is  a  doctrine  not  greatly  differing, 
if  at  all,  from  the  synergism  that  Melanchthon  developed  in  his  later 
days,  after  he  was  freed  from  the  overmastering  influence  of  Luther. 

Erasmus  writes  throughout  in  a  tone  of  studied  moderation,  of  ur- 
banity even,,  with  no  trace  of  personal  bitterness.  Indeed,  one  may 
read  between  the  lines  that  the  task  was  an  ungrateful  one,  undertaken 
only  because  the  author  felt  that  he  could  no  longer  with  safety  to  him- 
self refuse  to  write  something  against  Luther  and  his  teaching,  but  was 
accomplishing  the  task  in  a  perfunctory  and  half-hearted  fashion.  But 
there  was  nothing  perfunctory  or  half-hearted  or  urbane  about  Luther's 
reply.  He  seems,  to  do  him  justice,  to  have  tried  hard  to  restrain  him- 
self and  to  keep  his  language  within  bounds  of  decency,  and  it  is  also 
his  due  to  add  that  he  succeeded  remarkably — for  him.  But  though 
this  is  by  far  the  most  decent  of  all  his  controversial  writings,  his  De 
Servo  Arbitrio  cannot  be  commended  to  controversialists  for  their  imi- 
tation.1 He  cannot  deny  himself  the  pleasure  of  an  occasional  mean 
fling,  and  a  bitter  epithet  bursts  forth  from  him  now  and  then,  as  if  it 
were  unawares,  while  a  tone  of  ill-suppressed  rage  is  heard  through  the 
whole.2 

1  LOL,  7:  113  seq.,-  Walch,  18:  1669  seq. 

2  This  is  a  fair  specimen:  "Who  knows,  most  worthy  Erasmus,  but  God  may 
condescend  to  visit  you,  through  me,  his  miserable  and  frail  vessel,  that  in  a 


EXEUNT  HUMANISTS  231 

Luther  seizes  skillfully  on  the  fundamental  weakness  of  Erasmus, 
who  said  at  the  outset  of  his  Diatribe  that  he  was  so  far  from  delighting 
in  assertions  that  he  would  rather  at  once  go  over  to  the  sentiments  of 
the  skeptics,  if  the  inviolable  authority  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  and  the 
decrees  of  the  Church  would  permit — to  which  authorities  he  willingly 
submitted  himself  hi  all  things,  whether  he  followed  what  they  prescribe 
or  not.1  Nothing  could  have  been  more  characteristic  of  Erasmus,  or 
less  characteristic  of  Luther,  than  such  a  saying.  Erasmus  was  es- 
sentially a  skeptic  and  free  thinker,  but  without  the  courage  of  his  doubts. 
He  expresses  in  his  writings  doubts  concerning  the  Trinity,  the  deity  of 
Christ,  the  personality  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  transubstantiation,  the  sacra- 
mental character  of  penance  and  marriage,  the  invocation  of  saints  and  the 
Virgin,  the  authenticity  of  the  second  epistle  of  Peter  and  the  Apocalypse, 
the  genuineness  of  miracles,  including  those  of  the  Scriptures.  In  fact,  it 
is  much  easier  to  make  a  list  of  the  things  that  he  doubted  than  of  those 
that  he  believed.  There  are  only  two  things  in  which  we  may  be  quite 
certain  that  his  belief  was  absolute,  Erasmus  and  sound  learning.  With 
such  skepticism  Luther  had  nothing  in  common — he  believed  many 
things,  and  he  believed  all  with  an  energy  that  amounted  to  certitude. 
He  correctly  interpreted  Erasmus  to  mean:  it  matters  not  what  is  believed 
by  anyone,  anywhere,  if  the  peace  of  the  world  be  undisturbed.  Luther 
proceeds  to  make  a  strong  point  in  accusing  Erasmus  of  vacillation  in 
his  doctrine  of  free  will,  in  one  breath  asserting  and  denying  it.  Not 
without  justice,  he  charges  that  his  distinguished  adversary  is  "resolved 
to  hold  with  neither  side  ...  in  order  that  .  .  .  you  may  have  it  in  your 
power  to  assert  all  that  you  deny  and  deny  all  that  you  now  assert." 
This  is  precisely  what  Erasmus  had  been  doing  for  years,  and  the  thrust 
must  have  gone  home.  He  points  out  inconsistences  in  his  opponent,  as 
Erasmus  had  pointed  them  out  in  his  own  teaching — "You  also  enjoin 
us  works  only.  But  you  forbid  us  to  examine,  weigh  and  know,  first 
our  ability,  what  we  can  do  and  what  we  cannot  do,  as  being  curious, 
superfluous  and  irreligious."  Erasmus  had  defined  free  will  as  "the 
power  in  the  human  will,  by  which  a  man  may  apply  himself  to  those 
things  that  lead  to  eternal  salvation  or  turn  away  from  the  same." 
But  Luther  flatly  denies:  "The  will  cannot  change  itself,  nor  give  it- 
self another  bent;  but  rather  the  more  it  is  resisted,  the  more  it  is  irri- 
tated to  crave.  .  .  .  But  when  God  works  in  us,  the  will  being  changed 

happy  hour  I  may  come  to  you  with  this  book  of  mine,  and  gain  my  dearest  bro- 
ther." This  is  like  the  threat  of  some  pious  people  to  pray  for  their  adversaries — 
than  which  there  is  no  lower  depth  of  hypocritical  malice. 

1  Et  adeo  non  delector  assertionibus,  ut  facile  in  scepticorum  sententiam  pedibus 
discessurus  sim,  ubicunque  per  diviniarum  Scripturarum  inviobilem  auctoritatem 
et  Ecclesiae  decreta  liceat,  quibus  meum  sensum  ubique  libens  submitto,  sive  assequor 
quod  praescribit,  sivc  non  assequor. — Op.,  9:  1215  D. 


232  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

and  sweetly  breathed  on  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  desires  and  acts,  not 
from  compulsion,  but  responsively,  from  pure  willingness,  inclination 
and  accord."  "The  will,  having  lost  its  freedom,  is  compulsively  bound 
to  the  service  of  sin,  and  cannot  will  anything  good."1 

Luther  grounds  this  doctrine  of  the  will  in  the  nature  of  God.  "The 
omnipotence  of  God  makes  it,  that  the  wicked  cannot  evade  the  motion 
and  action  of  God,  but,  being  of  necessity  subject  to  it,  he  yields.  .  .  .  God 
cannot  suspend  his  omnipotence  on  account  of  his  aversion,  nor  can  the 
wicked  man  change  his  aversion.  Wherefore  it  is  that  he  must  of  ne- 
cessity continue  to  sin  and  err,  until  he  be  amended  by  the  Spirit  of 
God."2  To  the  objection  that  this  contradicts  our  ideas  of  goodness 
and  justice,  Luther  declares  that  whatever  God  wills  is  right,  purely 
because  he  wills  it :  "  God  is  that  being,  for  whose  will  no  cause  or  reason 
is  to  be  assigned,  as  a  rule  or  standard  by  which  it  acts;  seeing  that, 
nothing  is  superior  or  equal  to  it,  but  it  is  itself  the  rule  of  all  things. 
For  if  it  acted  by  any  rule  or  standard,  or  from  any  cause  or  reason, 
it  would  no  longer  be  the  will  of  God.  Wherefore,  what  God  wills  is 
not  therefore  right;  but  on  the  contrary,  what  takes  place  is  therefore 
right  because  he  so  wills.  A  cause  and  reason  are  assigned  for  the  will 
of  the  creature,  but  not  for  the  will  of  the  Creator,  unless  you  set  up, 
over  him,  another  Creator."  ;  Luther  thus  treats  us  to  the  ultimate  ab- 
surdity of  his  system,  a  God  who  is  wholly  irrational,  and  acts  without 
any  reason,  or  else  he  could  not  be  God! 

Erasmus  had  made  a  point  of  the  lamentation  of  Jesus  over  Jerusalem, 
and  the  words  "  How  often  would  I  have  gathered  you  .  .  .  but  ye  would 
not."  Luther  disposes  of  the  matter  by  making  a  distinction  between 
the  secret  and  the  revealed  will  of  God,  which  practically  means  that  God 
says  one  thing  while  he  means  another.  He  wishes  not  the  death  of 
a  sinner,  in  his  revealed  word,  but  in  his  inscrutable  will  he  has  determined 
the  sinner's  death.  As  man,  Christ,  who  had  come  to  redeem  the  world, 
shed  tears  over  Jerusalem,  but  this  does  not  exclude  his  purposely  leaving 
the  city  to  perdition,  as  God.4 

Erasmus  replied  in  a  book  as  long  and  labored  as  the  Diatribe  is  brief  and 
simple,  which  he  named  Hyperaspistes.5  He  complained,  not  without  rea- 
son, that  Luther  had  never  before  written  against  anyone  more  rabidly, 
and  what  is  worse,  more  maliciously.  "How,"  said  he,  "can  such  scur- 
rilous abuse,  such  criminal  falsehoods  benefit  your  cause,  that  you  should 
call  me  an  atheist,  an  epicurean,  a  skeptic,  a  blasphemer,  and  what  not?" 

1  De  Servo  Arbitrio,  Sec.  41-50.  The  references  to  this  treatise  are  conformed 
to  the  English  version  of  Cole,  London,  1823. 

2/6.,  Sec.  84.     s  ib.,  Sec.  88.      *  /&.,  Sec.  64,  66. 

5  The  Hyperaspistes  is  as  long  and  labored  as  the  Diatribe  is  brief  and  simple. 
Op.,  X:  1250-1536.  The  former  fills  286  columns  of  the  folio  edition  of  Erasmus,, 
while  the  latter  occupies  but  32  columns. 


EXEUNT  HUMANISTS  233 

The  Diatribe  of  Erasmus  and  Luther's  De  Semo  Arbitrio  are  little  read 
in  this  generation,  even  by  those  who  have  dipped  into  the  literature 
of  the  Reformation  and  know  something  at  first  hand  of  the  writings 
of  Luther  and  Erasmus.  To  us  they  are  chiefly  important  as  marking 
the  separation  between  Luther  and  the  greatest  of  the  scholars  and  men 
of  letters  of  the  Renaissance — or  rather,  for  there  was  more  in  this  than 
the  personal  element,  the  separation  between  Humanism  and  the  Ref- 
ormation. For  this  separation  we  must  conclude  that  Luther  was  as 
much  responsible  as  Erasmus,  but  in  the  nature  of  the  case  it  was  in- 
evitable. In  any  circumstances  it  was  unreasonable  to  expect  Erasmus 
to  become  a  follower  of  Luther,  and  Luther  would  tolerate  none  but 
followers.  He  thought  Erasmus  had  done  his  work  and  had  no  further 
use  for  him — he  was  a  hindrance,  a  makeweight,  and  he  must  be  thrust 
aside.  At  most,  he  might  be  only  a  looker  on.  And  Luther  was  right. 
He  had  come  to  a  place  where  he  must  assume  responsibility  and  become 
the  leader  of  a  revolution,  and  those  who  were  not  with  him  were  against  him. 

The  likenesses  of  the  two  men  were  accidental  and  superficial,  the 
differences  profound  and  vital.  To  Luther  religion  appeared  the  chief 
concern  of  man,  to  Erasmus  learning.  Erasmus  desired  from  youth 
to  become  a  cultivated  man,  Luther  aspired  to  be  made  a  new  creation  in 
Christ.  The  goal  at  which  Erasmus  aimed  for  society  was  its  advance 
in  civilization  and  enlightenment,  Luther  desired  its  moral  renovation. 
For  himself  Erasmus  would  have  attained  his  ultimate  object  whenever 
he  should  be  perfected  in  the  gifts  and  graces  of  this  world;  Luther 
would  remain  unsatisfied  until  he  should  be  made  meet  for  the  inheri- 
tance of  the  saints  in  light.  There  was  a  difference  like  a  world's  diameter 
between  the  two  men  and  their  ideals,  and  the  wonder  is  that  this  fact 
could  have  been  so  long  concealed  from  their  contemporaries — that  they 
could  ever  have  been  reckoned  as  belonging  to  the  same  party. 

But  though  Erasmus  finally  became  a  hindrance  to  the  Reformation, 
Luther  should  have  recognized  the  immense  service  that  Erasmus  had 
rendered,  nor  should  we  lose  sight  of  it.  There  is  something  touching 
in  his  words  to  Luther:  "What  you  owe  to  me,  and  how  you  have  re- 
quited it  I  do  not  now  inquire.  That  is  a  private  matter.  It  is  the  public 
calamity  that  distresses  me:  the  remediless  confusion  of  all  things, 
which  we  owe  to  you  more  than  to  anyone  else."  More  than  anyone 
else  Erasmus  himself  had  broken  the  power  of  authority,  and  had  made 
it  safe  to  think  and  write;  he  had  helped  to  create  the  conditions  in 
which  the  Lutheran  movement  was  possible,  and  he  had  many  times  de- 
fended Luther  when  the  latter  needed  a  defender.  It  was  not  his  fault 
if  Humanism,  revolting  against  scholastic  theology  and  overthrowing 
it,  was  attempting  to  take  the  place  of  the  dethroned  tyrant.  In  this  it 


234  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

was  but  following  the  natural  order.  However,  after  men  begin  by 
an  appeal  to  reason  they  invariably  drift  into  the  assertion  of  authority 
and  submission  to  it;  and  men  have  done  this  not  less  when  they  have 
been  battling  for  free  thought  against  bigotry  and  superstition.  Among 
the  narrowest,  most  intolerant,  most  scornful  of  all  parties,  has  often 
been  the  party  of  science,  of  literature,  of  culture!  Even  Erasmus 
might  be  a  bigot  in  the  interest  of  "good  learning"  and  Humanism  come 
to  stand  in  the  way  of  spiritual  freedom. 

Nor  can  we  of  this  generation  find  it  easy  to  forgive  Erasmus  his  lack 
of  perception.  Lucidity  was  his  special  gift,  and  he  should  have  seen 
clearly  that  Luther's  cause  and  his  own  must  stand  or  fall  together. 
Both  were  struggling  in  the  interests  of  freedom,  against  despotism.  Eras- 
mus should  have  seen  that  if  Rome  could  succeed  in  crushing  Luther, 
it  would  be  the  turn  of  the  Humanists  next.  It  was  a  case  in  which 
the  lovers  of  liberty,  as  Franklin  said,  must  all  hang  together  or  they 
would  all  hang  separately. 

Humanism  was  thrust  aside,  and  another  and  greater  force  came  for- 
ward to  take  its  place.  The  age  had  been  making  learning  an  end,  and 
men  awoke  to  find  there  is  something  in  this  life  more  important  than 
the  Greek  and  Latin  classics,  or  the  elevation  of  mind  and  refinement  of 
taste  that  come  from  studying  them.  The  Great  High  Priest  of  Culture 
might  minister  a  little  longer  at  decaying  altars,  but  his  cult  was  waning, 
and  it  would  be  years  before  he  would  have  a  successor.  It  happened 
with  Erasmus  as  it  has  happened  often  in  times  of  revolution:  the  great 
interest  to  which  he  had  given  his  mind  and  heart,  noble  as  it  was,  worthy 
as  we  must  regard  it,  ceased  to  be  the  chief  interest  of  the  world.  He 
was  in  the  midst  of  contending  parties,  himself  of  no  party.  The  sweetest 
friendships  of  his  life  had  been  blasted.  Growing  old,  lonely,  he  saw 
the  darkness  gathering  about  him.  For  some  years  he  found  quiet 
and  work  at  Basel,  but  revolution  came  there  too,  and  he  sought  another 
home  at  Freiburg.  Returning  at  last,  intending  to  stay  but  a  short 
time  at  Basel,  he  sickened  there  and  died,  having  completed  his  seventieth 
year  (1536).  Of  those  whose  profession  was  letters  he  was  perhaps  the 
greatest  that  ever  lived.  He  was  a  Humanist,  a  lover  of  justice  and 
fair  play,  a  hater  of  noise  and  confusion  and  loud  talking,  a  man  of 
genial  humor,  of  adamantine  industry;  flattered  by  cardinals,  princes, 
kings  and  Popes,  he  was  yet  the  friend,  companion  and  adviser  of  young 
scholars.  Having  offended  both  Protestants  and  Catholics  by  his  course, 
he  has  had  few  defenders,  and  we  are  in  some  danger  of  forgetting  how 
great  space  he  filled  in  the  early  days  of  the  Reformation  and  how  impor- 
tant an  influence  he  exerted  for  a  time  on  the  course  of  events.  With 
his  death  Humanism  ceased  to  be  a  distinct,  conscious  historic  force. 


CHAPTER  IV 

REFORM   OR  REVOLUTION? 

ALL  Germany  was  awakening ;  a  new  national  consciousness  was  coming 
to  the  birth.  The  " monk's  quarrel"  had  grown  into  an  open  revolt 
against  the  head  of  the  Roman  hierarchy.  It  was  daily  becoming  more 
clear  that  great  religious,  political  and  social  changes  were  imminent/ 
but  in  the  universal  ferment  it  was  by  no  means  yet  apparent  what 
sort  of  changes  would  result.  The  course  that  the  new  movement  would 
finally  take  was  not  yet  seen  by  its  leaders,  nor  had  they  thus  far  de- 
veloped any  definite  plan.  Perhaps  nobody  understood  the  situation 
less  clearly  than  Luther  himself,  the  author  of  all  this  confusion  and 
unrest.  But  he  had  been  slowly  feeling  his  way  toward  a  settled  and 
reasoned  policy,  and  events  were  to  precipitate  his  choice  of  allies  and 
crystallize  into  permanent  convictions  ideas  that  were  already  in  solution 
in  his  mind. 

Everything  thus  far  in  the  Lutheran  movement  pointed  to  revolution. 
There  had  naturally  gathered  under  Luther's  banner  all  the  discontented 
elements  of  society.  Much  in  his  earlier  teaching  had  encouraged  revolt 
against  the  existing  order,  and  if  other  and  more  conservative  elements 
in  his  writings  had  thus  far  been  overlooked  by  some  of  his  followers, 
this  was  only  natural  under  the  circumstances.  That  he  should  be  re- 
garded by  nearly  all,  by  friends  as  well  as  foes,  as  not  merely  the  central 
figure  of  a  time  of  social  unrest,  but  the  willing  leader  of  a  revolution 
that  could  issue  in  nothing  but  a  general  reconstruction  of  social  institu- 
tions, was  nothing  more  than  might  have  been  reasonably  expected.1 
But  the  time  was  at  hand  for  a  clearer  declaration  of  his  principles  and 
purposes — to  make  it  plain  to  the  world  that,  while  circumstances  might 
make  him  a  rebel  for  a  time,  nothing  could  make  him  a  revolutionary. 

We  have  already  seen  that,  of  all  the  classes  in  sixteenth-centurjV 
Germany,  the  peasants  were  in  most  desperate  case.    The  recent  sharp  A 
advance  in  prices,  and  the  consequent  increase  in  their  rents  and  the 
growing  exactions  of  their  lords,  had  made  their  condition  intolerable. 
They  felt  most  keenly  of  all  the  economic  crisis  through  which  the 
nation  was  passing,  the  pressure  of  which  was  the  real,  though  ill-ap- 
prehended, cause  of  the  revolt  against  Rome.    It  was  more  than  natural, 

i  It  is  instructive  to  note  that  the  great  religious  movement  called  the  Reforma- 
tion at  once  called  into  existence  a  multitude  of  socialistic  groups;  it  is  also  in- 
structive to  note  how  those  in  authority  dealt  with  these  groups. 

235 


236  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

it  was  inevitable,  that  the  new  movement  should  be  hailed  by  them 
as  the  harbinger  of  better  days.  Luther's  strenuous  advocacy  of  liberty 
for  Christian  men  might  by  him  be  understood  solely  of  liberty  in  things 
spiritual,  but  the  peasant  can  hardly  be  blamed  for  understanding  the 
brave  words  of  his  leader  in  a  less  sublimated  sense.  Luther's  insistence 
on  the  Scriptures  as  the  sole  authority  in  religion,  followed  by  putting 
those  Scriptures  in  their  native  speech  into  the  hands  of  all  his  country- 
men, had  resulted  in  a  stricter  and  more  consistent  application  of  his 
principle  to  all  mooted  questions  than  he  himself  gave  it  or  approved  in 
others.  He  might  content  himself  with  the  ideal  of  a  Church  reformed 
in  doctrine  and  worship,  but  to  the  peasant  the  Gospel  had  come  to 
mean  a  reorganization  of  society  in  accord  with  the  teachings  of  Jesus. 
The  discontent  of  the  peasantry  was  increased,  not  diminished,  by  the 
progress  of  the  revolt  against  Rome,  which  they  found,  in  spite  of  the  fine 
words  of  the  leaders,  was  bringing  them  no  redress  of  grievances,  and 
no  longer  promised  them  relief  from  intolerable  burdens.  Accordingly, 
they  determined  to  strike  a  blow  for  themselves.  Living  in  a  chronic 
state  of  rebellious  feeling,  that  had  often  broken  forth  with  less  provoca- 
tion into  violence,  they  now  rose  in  the  most  serious  of  all  their  attempts 
to  gain  by  force  what  had  been  refused  them  as  a  matter  of  justice. 

The  first  outbreak  occurred  in  August,  1524,  in  Swabia,  on  the  lands 
of  the  Count  of  Lupfen,  in  the  Black  Forest.  The  countess  had  compelled 
some  of  her  tenants  to  gather  strawberries  on  a  church  holiday,  and  also 
to  collect  snail  shells  for  winding  her  skeins  after  spinning.  Among  the 
customs  to  which  the  peasants  strenuously  objected  was  this  of  corvee, 
or  enforced  labor  in  addition  to  that  required  of  them  by  law  or  ancient 
usage.  The  limits  of  this  right  of  corvee  were  ill-defined,  and  so  every 
exercise  of  it  gave  rise  to  dispute  whether  it  was  a  lawful  demand  or  a 
tyrannous  imposition.  In  this  case  the  exaction  seems  to  have  been 
trivial,  yet  uncommonly  vexatious,  as  trivial  things  often  are.  The 
tenants  refused  the  service  and  this  spark  was  sufficient  to  fire  the  train 
and  produce  the  explosion.  From  estate  to  estate  the  revolt  spread, 
and  in  a  few  days  a  force  of  twelve  hundred  peasants  had  gathered  under 
the  leadership  of  one  Hans  Miiller,  a  roving  soldier  of  fortune,  and  ap- 
peared before  the  town  of  Waldshut  on  the  Rhine.  The  citizens  frater- 
nized with  the  insurgents  and  gave  them  provisions  and  encouragement. 
By  the  middle  of  October  Miiller  is  said  to  have  had  fully  five  thousand 
under  his  nominal  command.  As  winter  approached,  his  forces  dwindled 
away;  and  in  addition  the  princes  and  nobles  pretended  a  disposition 
to  grant  the  demands  of  the  peasants,  in  order  to  throw  them  off  their 
guard  and  gain  time  for  the  gathering  of  a  force  to  subdue  them.  Forcible 
suppression  of  the  revolt  was  the  more  difficult,  as  the  struggle  between 


REFORM  OR  REVOLUTION?  237 

the  Emperor  and  Francis  I,  now  fast  approaching,  had  drawn  off  from 
Germany  most  of  the  available  mercenaries,  who  were  promised  better 
pay  and  active  service  in  Italy,  where  the  struggle  was  evidently  to 
be  waged.  The  first  armed  demonstration  of  the  peasants  therefore  came 
to  nothing. 

During  the  winter  the  people  silently  brooded  over  their  wrongs,  or 
talked  of  them  at  weddings,  at  funerals  and  on  other  occasions  of  meeting. 
Early  in  the  year  1525,  their  grievances  took  shape  and  found  expression 
in  the  famous  Twelve  Articles.  These  articles  were  sent  to  Luther  and 
he  made  them  the  occasion  of  a  public  address,  first  to  the  nobles,  then 
to  the  peasants,  and  finally  to  both  together.1  The  fact  that  he  was 
consulted,  and  that  he  thought  it  to  be  his  duty  to  undertake  the  office 
of  monitor  indicates  as  clearly  as  possible  the  preeminence  of  his  position. 
He  was  the  one  man  whom  all  classes  would  hear,  and  who  had  a  right 
to  speak  to  all  classes.  He  was  the  recognized  leader  of  reform,  and  it 
was  his  prerogative  to  point  out  the  direction  that  the  new  movement 
should  take.  There  was  danger  that  it  would  turn  aside  from  its  proper 
course,  and  arraying  class  against  class,  end  in  tumult  and  confusion. 
He  must,  if  possible,  prevent  the  peasants  from  resorting  to  violence; 
or  failing  in  this,  he  must  free  himself  and  his  cause  from  all  respon- 
sibility for  their  acts.  It  was  a  difficult  task  and  he  performed  it  with 
characteristic  boldness. 

He  reminded  the  nobles  of  his  former  address  to  them,  and  of  his 
advice,  by  which  they  had  not  profited.  For  the  present  disturbed  con- 
dition of  things  they  had  no  one  on  earth  to  thank  but  themselves,  es- 
pecially the  blind  bishops  and  foolish  pastors  and  monks.  Things  had 
come  to  such  a  pass  that  the  people  could  not  and  should  not  endure 
them  any  longer.  If  the  rising  peasants  did  not  right  them,  others 
must  do  it.  The  nobles  might  slay,  but  God  would  make  alive.  "It 
is  not  the  peasants,  dear  Lords,  but  God  who  arrays  himself  against 
you."  Some  of  the  peasants'  demands  were  so  reasonable  that  it  was 
a  shame  they  were  compelled  to  make  them.  It  was  the  duty  of  the 
magistrates  to  care  for  the  people,  but  they  had  failed  to  do  it;  instead 
they  had  imposed  no  end  of  exactions.  If  crops  were  poor,  the  taxes 
were  nevertheless  to  be  paid;  if  crops  were  good,  the  taxes  and  rents  were 
increased;  and  the  money  wrung  from  the  poor  was  wasted  by  the  rich 
in  luxury  and  profusion.  In  a  word,  the  peasants  were  in  a  condition 
of  hopeless  wretchedness;  their  most  reasonable  demands  denied,  and 
most  unreasonable  burdens  imposed. 

To  the  peasants  Luther  said  that  the  princes  who  refuse  to  admit 

1  Ermahnung  zum  Frieden,  auf  zwolf  Artikel  der  Bauerschaft,  Wittenberg,  May, 
1522.  LDS,  24:  257  seq.  Walch  15:  58  seq.  A  nearly  complete  version  in 
English,  not  always  accurate,  may  bo  found  in  Michelet,  pp.  161-180. 


238  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

the  preaching  of  the  Gospel  and  oppress  the  people  justly  deserve  to 
be  dethroned,  but  it  was  not  the  business  of  the  peasants  to  dethrone 
them.  The  people  must  obey  the  magistrates.  The  magistrates  are 
God-appointed.  Sedition  is  rebellion  against  God;  they  that  take  the 
sword  perish  by  the  sword.  No  one  must  presume  to  be  judge  in  his 
own  cause;  no  one  must  undertake  to  redress  his  own  grievances.  When 
men  undertake  to  avenge  themselves,  all  law  is  at  an  end;  and,  casting 
off  all  restraint,  they  are  worse  than  the  heathen,  worse  than  the  Turks. 
It  does  not  alter  their  case  that  their  cause  is  the  cause  of  God.  Peter  was 
not  permitted  to  use  the  sword  in  defense  of  his  Master,  a  case  in  which, 
if  ever,  it  was  right  to  resort  to  violence.  The  people  must  be  patient;  the 
Gospel  itself  was  the  remedy  for  their  ills.  If  they  proceed  to  violence, 
God  will  disappoint  their  designs.  He  himself  would  pray  against  them; 
and,  he  said,  "though  I  be  a  sinner,  yet  the  cause  of  my  prayer  is  just 
and  I  make  no  doubt  it  will  be  heard;  for  God  will  have  his  name  to  be 
sanctified."  Some  of  the  peasants'  claims  Luther  would  not  consider — 
they  did  not  belong  to  his  office,  which  was  to  instruct  men  in  religious 
and  spiritual  affairs.  They  claimed  a  right  to  choose  a  minister;  there 
was  nothing  wrong  in  that,  but  as  the  magistrates  furnished  the  funds 
by  which  the  pastor  was  supported,  it  was  not  lawful  for  the  people  to  give 
them  to  whom  they  would.  The  people  were  first  to  ask  the  magistrate 
to  appoint  a  pastor;  if  he  refused,  they  might  themselves  choose  one  and 
support  him  with  their  own  means.  If  the  magistrate  should  interfere, 
the  people's  pastor  might  flee;  and  whosoever  chose  might  flee  with 
him.  Luther  utterly  rejected  the  peasants'  claim  for  exemption  from 
tithes  and  for  release  from  bondage.  "  What,"  he  said,  "  did  not  Abraham 
and  many  other  holy  men  possess  bondmen?"  The  demand  for  personal 
freedom  savored  of  rapine  and  violence,  and  was  repugnant  to  the  Gospel. 

The  address  was  as  simple,  candid  and  undiplomatic  as  possible. 
Luther  said  just  what  was  in  his  heart.  What  he  said  was  not  pleasing 
to  either  party  and  was  not  fitted  to  allay  the  passions  of  the  peasants. 
To  tell  an  armed  multitude  that,  for  the  most  part,  their  demands  were 
reasonable,  their  burdens  unbearable,  and  that  God  was  fighting  against 
their  oppressors,  was  not  exactly  the  way  to  induce  them  to  lay  down 
their  arms.  They  would  hardly  take  it  patiently  to  be  advised  to  submit 
to  wrong,  to  go  into  exile,  and  to  wait  for  the  coming  of  Christ  to  right 
all  things.  Naturally  they  would  listen  to  Luther  when  he  said  the  things 
that  pleased  them,  and  despise  his  counsel  when  he  spoke  of  patient 
endurance.  But,  as  matter  of  fact,  his  address  had  little  or  nothing  to 
do  with  the  course  of  events.  It  was  written  April  16th,  at  Eisleben,  and 
that  very  day  the  outbreak  began. 

It  has  sometimes  been  thought,  because  the  Twelve  Articles  are  in  the 


REFORM  OR  REVOLUTION?  239 

main  reasonable,  that  the  peasants  were  somehow  justifiable  in  what  they 
did.  The  substantial  justice  of  their  cause  has  blinded  men  to  their  con- 
duct. History  is  full  of  examples  of  the  heartless  cruelty  of  men  who 
seem  to  themselves  to  be  seeking  freedom,  justice,  and  even  religion, 
in  a  tumultuous  uprising.  The  peasants  took  arms,  as  they  said,  by  the 
command  of  God,  and  "out  of  love  to  the  public,  that  the  doctrine  of  the 
Gospel  might  prosper,  justice  and  honesty  of  life  might  flourish,  and  that 
they  might  for  the  future  secure  them  and  theirs  from  violence  and  op- 
pression." But  these  advocates  of  freedom  forced  men  to  join  them 
under  penalty  of  death;  these  asserters  of  truth  were  bound  by  no  pledge; 
these  friends  of  honesty  became  robbers  and  plunderers;  these  who  wished 
security  for  them  and  theirs  were  deaf  to  cries  for  mercy  from  others. 
Wherever  they  went  the  country  was  desolated  as  if  by  fire.  The  sad 
thing  about  the  matter  was,  that  with  all  the  injury  inflicted  on  others, 
they  got  no  good  to  themselves.  They  were  opposed  by  the  army  of  the 
Swabian  league  under  General  Truchsess,  and  wherever  they  were  met 
by  regular  troops  there  happened  rather  a  slaughter  than  a  battle.  As 
is  usual  in  such  cases,  violence  provoked  violence,  and  the  cruelty  of 
the  authorities  far  surpassed  that  which  they  avenged.  In  this  uprising, 
lasting  only  two  or  three  months,  it  is  supposed  that  fifty  thousand 
peasants  perished. 

Thus  far  only  the  revolt  in  southern  Germany  has  been  described; 
there  was  a  similar  uprising  in  the  North,  under  the  general  leadership 
of  Thomas  Miinzer.  This  man,  so  famous  among  the  fanatics  of  that 
time,  was  born  at  Stollburg,  probably  in  1490,  and  was  educated,  as 
some  say,  at  Wittenberg,  or  according  to  others  at  Leipzig.  He  studied 
in  an  irregular  way,  was  a  mystic  -in  theology,  and  an  enthusiast  by 
nature.  After  moving  from  place  to  place,  he  settled  in  Zwickau  in  1520, 
already  ripe  for  reform  or  revolution.  He  was  not  a  prophet  himself, 
but  he  was  a  friend  of  the  prophets.  After  staying  a  short  time  at  Zwickau, 
he  was  expelled  from  the  city  together  with  the  prophets,  who  went  to 
Wittenberg,  as  has  already  been  related;  while  Miinzer  went  to  Pragr 
where  he  had  no  great  success.  In  1523  he  was  at  Alstedt,  where  he 
married  a  nun.  He  was  afterwards  at  Niirnberg,  and  at  Basel,  and  finally 
at  Miilhausen,  where  he  was  first  preacher  and  in  a  little  time  magistrate 
and  ruler  as  well.  In  the  beginning  of  his  public  life  he  had  the  friend- 
ship of  Luther,  but  that  did  not  last  long;  he  felt  himself  called  to  be 
the  leader  of  a  new  movement.  The  Pope  imposed  too  heavy  burdens 
on  men;  Luther  was  too  lax  in  his  requirements,  especially  he  did  not 
sufficiently  emphasize  the  things  of  the  Spirit.  Miinzer  anticipated 
some  of  the  English  Puritans:  he  would  have  men  look  grave,  speak 
little,  wear  long  beards,  meditate  much  on  God,  pray  often  and  fervently, 


240  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

expect  some  recognizable  sign  of  God's  favor,  and  look  for  revelations 
in  dreams.  He  would  level  all  distinctions  among  men:  all  were  to  be 
equals  and  brothers,  and  have  all  things  in  common.  All  who  agreed 
with  him  were  his  friends  and  God's  friends;  those  who  opposed  him 
were  God's  enemies,  marked  for  destruction.  His  communism  was  of 
that  intoxicating  kind  that  takes  away  from  men  their  common  sense, 
robs  them  of  all  sympathy  with  their  race,  and  in  the  name  of  brother- 
hood makes  them  the  enemies  of  human  society.  He  was  not  without 
foresight.  In  anticipation  of  war  he  cast  "some  great  guns  in  the  monas- 
tery of  the  Grey  Friars,"  but  he  neglected  to  provide  ammunition  for 
them.  He  had  a  certain  prudence,  too,  and  patience  to  wait  for  the 
time  to  strike.  This  patience,  however,  availed  little,  as  Pfeifer,  one 
of  his  lieutenants,  precipitated  matters  by  beginning  the  attack  on 
nobles,  castles  and  monasteries.  His  success  encouraged  others  to 
begin  and  Miinzer  could  no  longer  delay. 

In  beginning  his  work  he  issued  a  proclamation.  "Dear  brethren," 
he  said,  "how  long  will  you  sleep!  Arise,  fight  the  battle  of  the  Lord. 
Now  is  the  time.  All  Germany,  France  and  Italy  are  moved.  Heed 
not  the  sorrow  of  the  godless.  Show  them  no  pity.  Rouse  up  the  vil- 
lages and  towns,  and  especially  the  miners  in  the  mountains.  On,  on, 
on,  while  the  fire  is  hot.  Let  your  sword  reek  with  slaughter.  So  long 
as  your  oppressors  live  you  cannot  be  free  from  the  fear  of  man.  So 
long  as  they  reign  over  you,  it  is  of  no  use  to  talk  of  God.  On,  on,  on, 
while  the  day  is  yet  yours,  God  is  for  you;  follow  him.  The  battle  is 
not  yours,  but  the  Lord's.  Quit  you  like  men.  You  shall  see  the  divine 
interposition.  Amen.  Given  at  Mulhausen  in  1525."  He  signs  him- 
self, "  Thomas  Miinzer,  servant  of  God  against  the  ungodly."  1 

It  was  in  April  that  Pfeifer  made  his  first  attack.  The  15th  of  the 
following  May,  Miinzer  and  his  followers  were  posted  on  a  hill  near 
Frankenhausen,  protected  by  a  rude  fortification  of  wagons  and  carts. 
Before  them  were  the  Elector  of  Saxony,  Duke  George  of  Saxony,  Philip 
of  Hesse  and  other  princes  and  their  retainers.  The  poor  people,  badly 
armed,  without  organization,  already  hah'  repenting  of  their  folly  and 
rashness,  were  losing  courage  in  the  presence  of  their  enemies.  The 
princes,  willing  to  spare  them,  sent  messengers  to  them,  advising  them 
to  deliver  up  their  arms  and  their  leaders  and  go  to  their  homes.  While 
they  hesitated,  Miinzer  came  forward  with  an  encouraging  address, 
the  effect  of  which  was  increased  by  the  opportune  appearance  of  a 
rainbow  in  the  heavens,  which  he  and  his  army  interpreted  as  a  divine 
intimation  of  victory.  On  the  side  of  the  nobles,  Philip  of  Hesse  took 
the  lead,  and  after  a  short  address,  made  the  assault.  The  peasants 

1  Michelet,  p.  181. 


REFORM  OR  REVOLUTION?  241 

were  scattered,  and  five  thousand  of  them  slaughtered.  Miinzer  was 
taken  in  the  town  of  Frankenhausen,  and  after  cruel  tortures  was  be- 
headed. It  is  reported  of  him  that  in  his  last  hours  he  recanted  his 
errors,  received  the  last  sacraments  of  the  Church  and  died  exhorting 
the  people  to  hold  fast  to  the  true  Catholic  faith.  The  incredible  levity 
that  marked  his  whole  life  makes  the  tale  not  difficult  to  believe.  It 
is  further  recorded  that  as  he  was  led  forth  to  die,  Duke  George,  a  stead- 
fast Romanist,  said  to  him,  "You  should  be  sorry,  Thomas,  that  you 
left  your  order,  laid  aside  your  cowl  and  took  a  wife."  Philip  of  Hesse, 
a  steadfast  Lutheran,  said,  "Let  not  that  trouble  you,  Miinzer,  but  let 
this  be  your  sorrow,  that  you  have  excited  the  people  to  rebellion.  Trust 
God,  he  is  gracious  and  merciful.  He  has  given  his  Son  to  die  for  you."1 

There  is  no  occasion  to  make  a  hero  of  Miinzer.  The  quick  and  calami- 
tous ending  of  his  undertaking  is  sufficient  proof  of  its  madness.  The 
address  that  he  is  reported  to  have  made  to  his  desponding  followers 
shows  at  the  same  time  his  skill  as  an  orator  and  his  fanaticism  as  a 
leader.  His  closing  words  might  well  have  moved  the  multitude,  ac- 
customed to  feel  that  they  were  living  in  the  intimate  presence  of  God: 
"Be  not  now  moved  at  the  suggestions  of  your  own  reason,"  he  said, 
"neither  be  troubled  at  a  certain  shadow  and  appearance  of  danger  that 
stands  in  your  way;  but  fight  valiantly  against  your  wicked  and  accursed 
enemies  and  be  not  afraid  of  their  great  guns,  for  in  my  coat  will  I  catch 
all  the  bullets  that  they  may  shoot  against  you.  See  you  not  how  gracious 
God  is  to  us!  Behold  a  manifest  sign  and  token  of  his  good  will  to  us. 
Lift  up  your  eyes  and  see  that  rainbow  in  the  clouds.  For  seeing  we 
have  the  same  painted  on  our  banner,  God  plainly  declares  by  that 
representation  which  he  shows  us  from  on  high,  that  he  will  stand  by  us 
in  the  battle,  and  that  he  will  utterly  destroy  our  enemies.  Fall  on 
them  courageously  and  with  certain  hope  of  divine  aid,  for  God  will 
have  us  to  have  no  peace  with  the  wicked."  2 

With  the  dispersion  of  the  rabble  at  Frankenhausen  and  the  death 
of  Miinzer,  the  insurrection  ended.  It  had  accomplished  nothing  good; 
what  good  it  aimed  at  was  obscured  by  the  violent  methods  of  seeking 
it.  No  one  can  blame  the  peasants  for  being  discontented;  their  con- 
dition was  intolerable.  Nor  is  their  rising  difficult  to  account  for.  Many 
new  forces  had  been  introduced  into  the  life  of  the  times,  and  these  had 
produced  changes  and  dislocations.  Relations  that  had  been  natural 
and  beneficial  were  such  no  longer.  Under  feudal  institutions  vassal 

1  See  the  very  hostile  and  prejudiced  account  of  Miinzer's  life,  published  soon 
after  his  death  and  attributed  to  Melanchthon,  Walch,  16:  159  seq.  Luther  wrote 
a  bitter  tract,  called  Eine  Schreckliche  Gericht  Gottes  iiber  Thomas  Miintzer,  LDS, 
65:  12.  Also  see  Strobel,  Leben,  Schriften  und  Lehren  Thoma  Mtintzers,  "Numbers, 
1795. 

*  Strobel,  pp.  110-112. 


242  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

and  lord  had  been  mutually  helpful:  there  was  loyalty  and  devotion 
on  the  one  side,  and  care  and  protection  on  the  other.  But  with  the 
change  in  the  mode  of  warfare  lately  introduced,  there  had  come  a 
change  in  everything  else.  The  forty  days'  service  that  the  vassal  ren- 
dered his  lord  in  return  for  the  privileges  of  the  land  gave  place  to  hired 
service.  With  paid  soldiers  at  his  command,  the  lord  was  independent 
of  his  vassals.  His  interests  and  theirs  were  no  longer  common.  There 
was  a  constant  tendency  for  the  strong  to  encroach  on  the  rights  of  the 
weak,  and  as  constant  a  tendency  among  the  weak  to  a  feeling  of  jealousy 
and  estrangement  toward  the  strong.  The  life,  the  sweetness,  the 
glory  of  the  old  system  had  passed  away  and  its  dead  body  remained 
an  offense  and  a  burden.  In  the  old  times  the  peasant  had  borne  the 
burdens  for  the  sake  of  the  blessings;  the  blessings  were  gone,  while 
the  burdens  remained  and  were  increased.  It  was  such  a  situation 
as  may  be  brought  about  in  any  time  of  rapid  and  radical  social  changes. 
As  the  different  classes  were  separated  from  each  other  in  interests 
and  sympathies,  antagonisms  might  easily  arise.  Several  things  con- 
spired to  arouse  them.  The  increase  of  wealth  and  luxury  and  knowl- 
edge; the  quickening  of  all  the  pulses  of  life;  opportunities  coming  as 
they  had  not  come  before  aroused  new  aspirations  and  ambitions  in 
the  bosoms  of  men.  They  became  conscious  that  they  had  rights,  that 
they  might  rise,  and  that  their  inherited  condition  was  a  hindrance 
to  them.  At  this  time  Luther  came  preaching  that  the  Pope  was  a 
tyrant,  imposing  unjust,  useless,  even  injurious,  laws  upon  the  people; 
that  the  bishops  were  doing  the  same  thing;  and  that  the  rulers,  in 
addition  to  the  wrongs  that  they  themselves  inflicted  were  protecting 
and  upholding  the  Pope  and  the  bishops.  Those  among  the  poorer 
classes  who  believed  Luther  came  to  feel  that  the  rulers  were  their 
enemies  and  God's  enemies.  That  they  had  this  feeling  is  proved  by 
their  conduct,  by  their  publications  and  the  testimony  of  all.  That 
Luther's  teaching  helped  to  produce  and  intensify  it  is  equally  clear.1 
Besides  this,  there  were  active  fomenters  of  trouble.  Sleidan,  a  con- 
temporary historian  and  witness,  says,  "This  great  and  terrible  war 
was,  in  a  great  measure,  occasioned  by  busy  and  pragmatical  preachers." 
Against  these  preachers  Luther  speaks  with  the  emphasis  of  indignation. 
He  says,  "Satan  has  raised  up  many  seditious  and  bloody  preachers." 
"Take  heed,  therefore,  again  and  again,  what  sort  of  men  your  preachers 
are,  for  I  am  afraid  that  bloody-minded  men  have  crept  in  among  you 
who  by  their  sermons  inflame  you."  "The  devil,  who  had  not  hitherto 

1  Duke  George  of  Saxony  wrote  to  Philip  of  Hesse,  his  son-in-law,  that  no  one 
could  help  seeing  that  the  preaching  of  Lutherans  would  produce  just  such  effects 
as  had  been  produced.  Philip  replied,  saying  that  there  were  no  Lutherans  among 
those  whom  he  had  punished.  Gieseler,  4:  123. 


REFORM  OR  REVOLUTION?  243 

been  able  to  oppress  me  by  means  of  the  Pope  of  Rome,  now  goes  about 
to  undo  me  by  those  bloodthirsty  preachers."  "Above  all  things, 
beware  of  those  teachers  that  spur  you  forward.  I  know  what  sort  of 
men  they  are;  they  lead  you  to  a  precipice,  that  they  may  get  honors 
and  riches  by  your  dangers."  He  tells  the  nobles  that,  on  account  of 
their  sins,  God  permits  the  devil  by  means  of  those  prophets  to  stir 
up  the  people  against  them.1  In  the  face  of  all  these  things,  we  must 
conclude  that  Luther's  rebellion  against  the  Papacy  had  something  to 
<io  with  the  uprising  of  the  peasants.. 

Luther  was  deeply  outraged  by  this  violent  outbreak  of  the  peasants. 
For  one  thing,  they  had  not  listened  to  his  advice,  and  to  his  mind  such 
conduct  in  any  man  or  any  body  of  men  was  an  unpardonable  sin. 
Already  he  had  begun,  as  his  treatment  of  Carlstadt  and  Erasmus  has 
shown  us,  to  identify  his  own  opinions  with  his  cause,  and  his  cause 
with  the  counsel  of  the  Almighty,  so  that  those  who  withstood  him 
seemed  to  him  to  be  enemies  of  God  and  of  all  good.  Then  he  probabty 
also  foresaw  what  actually  came  to  pass,  that  his  enemies  would  try 
to  fasten  on  him  and  his  teachings  responsibility  for  the  peasants'  revolt ; 
and  he  feared  that  those  in  authority,  who  had  been  his  protectors 
and  had  promoted  the  spread  of  his  teachings,  might  take  a  similar 
view  and  turn  against  him.  In  a  burst  of  rage  and  selfish  fear  he  sat 
down  to  compose  a  pamphlet  against  the  "robbing  and  murdering 
bands  of  peasants"  in  which  he  raved  against  them  with  frenzied  vio- 
lence.2 By  their  rebellion  these  people  had  put  themselves  beyond  the 
pale  of  sympathy  or  toleration.  They  were  to  be  treated  just  as  a  mad 
dog  is  treated,  slain  without  hesitation  or  pity,  because  they  had  no 
pity.  Everyone  who  could  slay  was  called  on  to  slay;  those  who  slew 
would  be  doing  God  service,  and  those  who  fell  in  fight  with  the  peasants 
would  be  martyrs.  As  he  saw  it,  the  conduct  of  the  peasants  was  not 
only  wicked  in  itself,  but  it  imperiled  all  that  he  had  wrought  for,  dared 
for,  hoped  for.  It  did  measureless  harm;  it  would  destroy  measureless 
good. 

The  passionate  violence  and  bitterness  of  this  pamphlet  constitutes 
to  this  day  an  ineradicable  blot  on  the  name  and  fame  of  Luther,  for 
which  his  admirers  attempt  various  lame  apologies,  but  no  defense. 
His  conduct  is  the  more  condemnable  when  we  recollect  that  he  was 

1  The  sentences  quoted  in  this  paragraph  are  taken  from  Sleidan's  account  of 
Luther's  address  on  the  Twelve  Articles,  pp.  92-94.    The  preachers  against  whom 
Luther  speaks  so  positively  were,  it  may  be,  already  more  or  less  in  opposition 
to  him.    He,  no  doubt,  had  Miinzer  in  mind.    But  even  the  most  fanatical  of  the 
preachers  were,  as  a  rule,  first  Lutherans  and  then  fanatics.    They  are  the  legitimate 
creation  of  the  first,  chaotic,  fermentatious,  period  of  the  Reformation. 

2  Wider  die  morderischen  und  raiiberischen  Rotten  der  Bauern.     LDS,  24:  287  seq. 
For  the  full  text,  see  Appendix  V. 


244  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

the  son  of  a  peasant,  that  his  sympathies  should  naturally  have  been 
with  the  class  from  which  he  had  risen,  and  that  in  thus  taking  without 
reservation  the  side  of  the  princes  and  becoming  more  violent  in  word 
than  they  were  in  deed,  he  was  acting  the  renegade.  But  no  stones 
should  be  cast  at  him  to-day  by  those  men  who  have  come  up  from 
the  lower  ranks,  and  obtained  professional  standing  or  business  eminence, 
and  now  for  hire  take  the  side  of  corporate  wealth  and  special  interests, 
against  the  rights  and  welfare  of  the  plain  people  from  whom  they 
sprang.  Even  Luther's  friends  were  shocked  by  his  pamphlet  and  re- 
monstrated with  him,  whereupon  he  justified  himself  in  what  we  should 
call  an  "open  letter,"  l  in  which  he  repeated  his  offense,  and  even  inten- 
sified his  guilt,  for  he  now  said  in  cold  blood  and  after  due  reflection 
what  might  have  been  excused  had  he  pleaded  that  he  had  first  written 
in  the  heat  of  passion.  Indeed,  from  this  time  on,  the  chief  difference 
in  tone  that  we  can  detect  between  the  Papal  and  the  Lutheran  docu- 
ments is,  that  the  Pope  claimed  to  be  infallible,  while  Luther  would 
never  admit  that  he  was  in  the  wrong. 

From  that  day  to  this,  also,  writers  on  the  Reformation,  with  sub- 
stantial unanimity,  have  seen  the  peasant  revolt  through  the  spectacles 
provided  by  Luther.  They  have  dwelt  at  length  on  the  brutality  and 
violence  of  the  peasants,  and  magnified  the  outrages  committed  by 
them  against  the  class  that  had  so  oppressed  them,  but  have  main- 
tained a  prudent  silence  concerning  the  violence  and  brutality  of  the 
nobles,2  and  have  discreetly  omitted  mention  of  their  outrages  on  the 
peasants  both  then  and  for  generations  previously.  They  have  tacitly 
approved  Luther's  ethical  principle:  that  for  a  noble  to  kill  a  peasant 
was  rendering  service  to  God,  but  for  a  peasant  to  kill  a  noble  was  a 
crime  without  forgiveness  in  this  world  or  in  the  world  to  come.  And 
even  now  that  the  facts  are  better  apprehended,  the  most  that  can  be 
said  by  a  candid  historian  does  not  amount  to  a  justification  of  the 
peasants.  In  the  light  of  all  that  occurred  during  this  struggle,  one  is 
compelled  to  admit  that,  in  a  brutal  age,  they  often  behaved  themselves 
almost  as  badly  as  their  lords. 

1  Eine  Sendbrief  von  dem  harten  Buchlein  wider  die  Bauern.     July,   1525,  ad- 
dressed to  Caspar  Miiller,  chancellor  at  Mansfeld.     LDS,   24:   295   seq.     Walch, 
16:  77  seq.     Luther   showed   his   tender   sympathy  with  the   peasants   by  such 
contemptuous  words  as  these:  "What  is  ever  more  uncivil  than  the  mad  plebeian 
or  the  common  man  when  he  is  stuffed  and  drunk  and  obtains  power?"     "The 
severity  and  rigor  of  the  sword  are  as  necessary  for  the  people  as  eating  and  drink- 
ing, yea,  as  life  itself."     "The  ass  will  have  blows  and  the  mob  will  be  controlled 
with  force — that  God  knew  well.     Therefore  he  gave  the  ruler,  not  a  fox's  tail, 
but  a  sword  in  his  hand." 

2  Contemporaries  estimated  that  100,000  peasants  were  slaughtered.     Though 
such  wild  guesses  have  no  scientific  value,  as  mere  statistics,  they  have  this  value: 
they  are  a  good  index  of  the  judgment  of  eye-witnesses  that  a  merciless  revenge  was 
taken  on  the  rebels. 


REFORM  OR  REVOLUTION?  245 

Looking  back  from  this  distance  on  the  uprising,  we  are  better  able 
than  were  its  contemporaries  to  understand  its  significance,  to  estimate 
its  chances  of  success  and  to  speak  impartially  of  its  measure  of  justi- 
fication. That  the  ideals  and  demands  of  the  peasants  were  substantially 
just  is  conceded  by  practically  every  modern  writer  on  the  period,  and 
is  tacitly  confessed  by  subsequent  legislation  in  Germany,  which  has 
virtually  conceded  every  one  of  these  demands  and  more.  It  was  perhaps 
too  much  to  expect  the  immediate  concession  of  all  that  was  demanded 
in  the  Twelve  Articles,  but  on  the  other  hand  there  is  no  evidence  that 
the  peasants  would  not  have  been  satisfied  with  less — so  far  satisfied, 
'at  least,  as  to  refrain  from  open  rebellion  and  bide  their  time  for  the 
gaining  of  the  rest.  If  ever  a  people  or  a  class  had  a  genuine  grievance 
that  warranted  forcible  resistance  to  legalized  oppression,  these  peasants 
could  make  out  a  clear  case.  Except  on  the  theory  of  passive  resistance 
to  every  wrong,  as  the  duty  of  all  men,  and  especially  of  Christians, 
their  rebellion  could  not  and  cannot  be  condemned.  And  accordingly, 
as  we  shall  presently  see,  it  was  on  that  ground  that  Luther  condemned 
them. 

But,  in  modern  thinking,  the  moral  right  of  rebellion  and  revolution 
is  conditioned  not  only  on  the  justice  of  a  cause,  but  also  on  a  rea- 
sonable prospect  of  success.  Men  who  incite  their  fellows  to  a  rebellion 
that  has  not  the  slightest  hope  of  victory  are  virtually  guilty  of  murder. 
Had  the  peasants  this  practical  justification,  as  well  as  the  justification 
of  intolerable  wrong?  No  doubt  it  seemed  to  them  that  they  had  a 
fair  chance  of  winning,  but  we  can  see  more  clearly,  and  it  is  apparent 
to  us  that  they  had  from  the  first  nothing  to  expect  but  defeat.  Their 
weakness  was  that  they  lacked  intelligent  leadership.  If  they  had  had 
this,  they  would  not  have  lost  their  one  favorable  opportunity,  to  make 
common  cause  against  the  princes  with  the  knights.  There  was  a  single 
moment  at  which  a  peasant  uprising  might  have  proved  successful, 
and  that  was  when  Sicldngen  and  his  knights  declared  war  against  the 
ecclesiastical  princes  of  the  Empire.  Had  the  peasants  risen  then,  the 
already  frightened  princes  would  have  granted  anything;  or,  by  combining 
then  with  the  knights,  the  power  of  the  princes  might  have  been  per- 
manently broken,  and  a  strong  imperial  government,  supported  by 
knights  and  peasants,  might  have  been  established  in  Germany.  But 
though  the  avowed  ends  of  the  two  classes  were  so  similar  that  they  may 
be  pronounced  identical  for  political  purposes,  Hutten1  was  the  only 
man  on  the  side  of  the  knights  with  intelligence  enough  to  appreciate 
the  offered  opportunity;  and  pride  of  class  prevented  them  from  seeking 
such  an  alliance.  It  might  be  interesting,  but  it  would  be  wholly  un- 

1  See  his  dialogue  of  1622,  "Neu  Karsthans,"  Op.  5:  455  seq. 


246  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

profitable,  to  speculate  upon  the  consequences  to  the  history  of  Ger- 
many and  the  fortunes  of  the  Reformation  that  would  have  resulted 
from  such  an  alliance.  By  failure  to  effect  such  a  combination,  the 
single  opportunity  of  success  that  offered  was  lost,  and  the  princes  were 
able  to  beat  their  opponents  in  detail,  gaining  an  easy  triumph  over  foes 
that  if  united  would  as  easily  have  crushed  them.  The  Emperor,  ab- 
sorbed in  what  he  thought  were  larger  schemes,  was  equally  without 
appreciation  of  the  opportunity  offered  him  by  this  event,  and  before 
he  saw  it  his  chance  had  vanished  of  becoming  the  powerful  head  of  a 
united  Germany.  Henceforth  he  remained  only  the  proud  possessor 
of  an  empty  title.  The  only  gainers  were  the  princes,  who  came  out  of 
the  struggle  with  greatly  increased  power,  and  found  themselves  on  the 
safe  road  to  complete  domination  in  the  Empire.  The  only  danger  with 
which  they  now  had  to  reckon  was  the  possible  combination  of  the 
free  cities  against  them,  a  combination  that  would  be  dangerous  on 
account  of  the  growing  wealth  of  the  towns  and  their  consequent  ability 
to  outbid  others  for  the  services  of  the  soldiers  of  fortune  on  whose  aid, 
throughout  this  century,  the  fortunes  of  war  were  to  turn. 

Luther  had  foreseen  and  predicted  these  civil  commotions,  though 
•doubtless  not  the  precise  forms  that  they  assumed  in  the  revolts  of  knights 
and  peasants.  Yet  his  words  strikingly  conform  to  the  main  facts, 
when  he  wrote  to  his  friend  Link,  nearly  two  years  before  the  trouble: 
""I  greatly  fear  that,  if  the  princes  continue  to  hearken  to  the  foolish 
brains  of  Duke  George,  there  will  be  a  rebellion  throughout  all  Germany 
Against  princes  and  governments  and  the  whole  spiritual  order — for 
so  this  matter  appears  to  me.  The  people  are  everywhere  disturbed, 
and  they  have  eyes  and  will  no  longer  be  oppressed  by  force,  nor  can 
this  be  done.  It  is  the  Lord's  doing,  and  he  conceals  these  menaces 
and  overhanging  perils  from  the  eyes  of  the  princes;  through  their  blind- 
ness and  excessive  violence  he  will  bring  things  to  such  a  pass,  so  it 
seems  to  me,  that  I  shall  see  Germany  swim  in  blood.  .  .  .  They  should 
understand  that  the  people  are  not  what  they  once  were;  they  should  know 
that  the  sword  is  near  their  own  house,  their  own  throat  perhaps.  .  .  . 
I  believe  that  I  speak  this  in  the  Spirit."  l  But  though  he  had  a  pre- 
vision of  the  trouble,  he  none  the  less  recoiled  from  it  when  it  came,  and 
it  forced  him  to  consider  more  carefully  than  before  the  whole  question 
of  civil  government  and  the  relations  to  it  of  citizens  in  general,  and 
also  of  the  clergy  and  all  matters  spiritual.  In  other  words,  the  exi- 
gences of  the  Reformation,  no  less  than  the  disorders  in  society,  de- 
manded that  the  leader  of  the  new  movement  should  think  out  and  teach 
a  workable  theory  of  the  relations  of  Church  and  State,  and  the 

iWalch,  15:  2611;  De  Wette,  2:  156. 


REFORM  OR  REVOLUTION?  247 

way  in  which  Christian  men  should  discharge  their  civil  and  religious 
duties. 

There  had  been  several  attempts  before  Luther's  day  to  state  a  political 
theory  that  would  justify  opposition  to  the  encroachments  of  the  Papacy 
and  an  attempt  at  reformation,  yet  at  the  same  time  establish  secular 
institutions  on  a  firm  basis.  Dante  had  made  a  remarkable  contribution 
to  political  theory  in  his  De  Monarchia,  in  which  he  set  forth  as  his  ideal 
two  world  dominions,  each  ordained  by  God  to  be  supreme  in  its  sphere, 
one  secular,  one  spiritual,  the  Empire  and  the  Church.  Dante's  theory 
had  proved  very  influential;  men  found  it  hard  to  escape  from  the  glamour 
of  it;  but  it  had  proved  itself  to  be  utterly  unworkable.  The  continuous 
conflict  between  the  Popes  and  the  Emperors  that  makes  up  the  greater 
part  of  medieval  history  was  convincing  testimony  to  the  fact  that  two 
such  equal  world  dominions  could  not  coexist  in  the  world  of  fact — one 
must  prove  superior  to  the  other,  and  conflict  must  continue  until  one 
had  overcome  the  other.  Not  long  after  Dante,  a  countryman  of  his, 
Marsiglio  of  Padua,  composed  a  treatise  that  he  called  Defensor  Pads, 
which  appealed  to  his  own  age  much  less  than  that  of  Dante,  but  an- 
ticipated to  a  remarkable  degree  the  political  theories  of  modern  times. 
Marsiglio  is  perhaps  entitled  to  no  more  honor  as  the  originator  of  a 
system  than  Dante;  each  may  be  given  the  praise  of  clearly  expounding 
a  theory  that  others  had  suggested. 

The  germ  of  his  theory  Marsiglio  found  in  the  "Politics"  of  Aristotle, 
who  taught  that  the  legislator  is  the  people,  or  a  majority  of  them,  com- 
manding or  determining  that  something  be  done  or  refrained  from,  in 
the  field  of  social  action,  under  penalty  of  some  temporal  punishment. 
Civil  government  is  of  divine  origin,  in  the  sense  that  man  has  been 
created  by  God  a  social  animal,  and  government  is  a  necessity  of  social 
existence.  These  ideas  derived  from  Aristotle,  Marsiglio  uses  in  a 
Christian  sense  and  develops  their  necessary  consequences  as  applied 
to  both  secular  and  ecclesiastical  government.  Every  civil  ruler  is 
the  representative  of  his  people,  and  when  he  acts  as  legislator,  law 
is  valid  because  he  is  their  representative.  In  the  same  way,  the  Church 
is  the  general  body  of  the  faithful  who  believe  and  call  upon  the  name 
of  Christ;  and  ultimate  authority  rests  in  the  whole,  and  not  in  any 
part.  The  organ  of  authority  is  a  general  council,  representing  the 
whole  Church,  and  having  supreme  jurisdiction  in  religion.  The  Church's 
function  is  teaching,  not  compulsion,  and  even  a  council  therefore  can- 
not enforce  its  decrees.  There  is  no  real  power  of  the  keys;  the  priest 
bears  the  keys  as  a  humble  servitor;  he  cannot  remit  penalty,  but  God 
alone.  The  Pope  has  just  so  much  jurisdiction  as  any  bishop,  and  a 
precedence  in  dignity  only. 


248  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

But  while  such  a  political  theory  was  in  exact  accord  with  the  spirit 
of  the  Reformation,  and  was  to  be  the  ultimate  ground  of  Protestantism, 
it  was  far  too  advanced  to  commend  itself  to  Luther,  even  had  he  been 
familiar  with  it.  But  there  is  no  reason  to  believe  that  he  had  ever  read, 
or  even  heard  of,  the  Defensor  Pads,  though  some  of  its  reasonings  were 
in  the  air  during  his  age.  To  these  he  listened  only  to  repudiate  them. 
He  was  doubtless  equally  ignorant  of  the  De  Monarchia,  but  its  theory 
was  much  more  in  consonance  with  his  own  thinking  and  demanded 
only  slight  modification  to  be  accepted  by  him.  With  Dante,  Luther 
believed  that  God  had  immediately  instituted  civil  government,  not 
mediately  through  the  constitution  of  man.  The  secular  ruler,  he  in- 
sisted, derived  his  authority  directly  from  God,  and  not  from  the  people 
as  their  representative.  The  ruler  was  the  representative  of  God,  not 
of  the  people,  and  therefore  accountable  to  God  only  for  the  exercise  of 
his  power.  The  people  could  not  call  him  to  account  in  any  way,  and 
must  endure  his  misrule  with  what  patience  they  might,  as  the  will  of 
God,  as  inescapable  as  the  climate,  or  sickness,  or  death.  Under  no 
circumstances  might  they  refuse  obedience  or  rebel  against  lawful 
authority.  Princes  and  nobles  owed  the  same  obedience  to  the  Emperor 
that  the  people  owed  to  them,  and  it  was  not  lawful  to  take  up  the  sword 
even  in  self-defense  against  lawful  authority.  Later  advocates  of  the 
divine  right  of  kings  might  find  a  whole  arsenal  of  weapons  in  the 
teachings  of  Luther.  He  would  recognize  but  one  exception:  God  had 
also  ordained  a  spiritual  kingdom,  consisting  of  those  who  believed  on 
His  Son.  When  rulers  invaded  this  kingdom  and  presumed  to  com- 
mand what  God  forbade,  a  passive  resistance  to  them  was  lawful,  and 
even  the  duty  of  a  Christian,  who  must  for  conscience  sake  suffer 
whatever  punishment  might  be  inflicted  for  his  disobedience. 

In  several  tracts  published  before  the  outbreaks,  he  had  set  forth 
this  conception  of  civil  government  and  its  relations  to  the  kingdom 
of  God,  especially  in  one  "On  Secular  Authority"  printed  in  1523. l 
In  this  he  relies  for  proof  of  his  fundamental  proposition  that  the  State 
exists  by  God's  will  chiefly  on  Rom.  13:  1,  2,  though  he  also  quotes  1  Pet. 
2:  13,  14.  The  right  of  the  sword,  he  says,  has  existed  from  the  beginning 
of  human  society,  and  Christ  confirmed  it  when  he  said  to  Peter,  "  They 
that  take  the  sword  shall  perish  by  the  sword"  (Matt.  26:  52).  If  the 
world  were  made  up  of  true  Christians,  it  would  need  no  prince,  king, 
sword  or  law,  for  they  who  have  the  Holy  Spirit  in  their  hearts  suffer 
wrong  gladly,  but  do  wrong  to  no  one.  But  the  world  is  and  remains 
unchristian;  God  has  therefore  established  civil  government,  and  gave 

*  Von  Weltlicher  Oberkeit,  wie  weit  man  ihr  Oehorsam  schuldig  sei  (1523),  LDS,  22: 
59  seq. 


REFORM  OR  REVOLUTION?  249 

it  the  sword  to  compel  the  wicked  to  be  orderly.  Christians,  though 
they  do  not  need  it  for  themselves,  render  cheerful  obedience  to  this 
government,  through  love  of  others  who  do  need  it.  The  sword  is  a 
great  and  necessary  utility  to  the  whole  world  for  the  maintenance  of 
peace,  the  punishment  of  wrong,  and  the  restraint  of  the  wicked.  So 
the  Christian  pays  tribute  and  tax,  honors  civil  authority,  serves,  assists, 
does  everything  he  can  to  maintain  that  authority  with  honor  and  fear. 
But  civil  government  has  no  jurisdiction  in  spiritual  things — here  we  must 
obey  God  rather  than  man. 

Luther  was  thus  careful  to  found  civil  authority  on  the  ordinance 
of  God,  because  it  was  clear  to  him  that  it  could  not  be  founded  on  any- 
thing else,  certainly  not  on  the  character  and  fitness  of  rulers  to  rule. 
Their  claim  to  obedience  from  their  people  was  official,  not  personal; 
their  office  was  divine,  even  if  their  character  was  Satanic.  He  speaks 
with  his  usual  plainness,  and  with  what  under  all  the  circumstances 
was  startling  boldness,  on  this  point:  " From  the  beginning  of  the  world," 
he  says,  "a  wise  prince  has  been  a  rare  bird;  yet  a  pious  prince  has  been 
much  rarer.  They  are  commonly  the  greatest  fools  or  the  worst  rascals 
on  earth;  therefore  one  may  always  anticipate  the  worst  of  them,  and 
little  good  must  be  expected,  especially  in  spiritual  matters  that  belong 
to  the  salvation  of  souls.  For  they  are  God's  jailers  and  hangmen,  and 
his  divine  wrath  makes  use  of  them  to  punish  the  wicked  and  maintain 
outward  peace.  He  is  a  great  Lord,  our  God,  and  therefore  he  must 
and  will  have  such  noble,  high-born,  rich  hangmen." 

These  ideas  Luther  continued  from  this  time  to  expound,  sometimes 
with  greater  fulness  than  in  the  earlier  writings,  but  with  no  modifica- 
tion of  principle: 

It  is  the  law  of  Christ  not  to  resist  evil,  not  to  grasp  the  sword, 
not  to  defend  ourselves,  not  to  revenge  ourselves ,  but  to  give  up 
life  and  property,  that  he  may  take  who  will.  For  we  have  yet 
enough  remaining  in  our  Lord,  who  will  not  forsake  us,  since  he  has 
so  promised.  Suffering,  suffering,  the  cross,  the  cross,  is  the  law  of 
Christ;  this  and  nothing  else.  Will  you  thus  fight  and  not  agree 
to  let  the  coat  go  with  the  cloak,  but  try  to  get  back  the  cloak 
again,  though  you  should  rather  wish  to  die  and  leave  the  body, 
than  not  to  love  your  enemies  and  do  them  good?  0  you  easy 
Christians!  Dear  friends,  Christians  are  not  so  common,  that  they 
can  be  gathered  in  a  heap;  a  Christian  is  a  rare  bird.  Would  to 
God  the  most  of  us  were  only  good,  pious  heathen,  observing  the 
natural,  to  say  nothing  of  the  Christian  law!  Christians  are  not 
to  fight  for  themselves  with  the  sword  or  arquebus,  but  with  the 
cross  and  patience;  even  as  their  general,  Christ,  does  not  wield  the 
sword  but  hangs  upon  the  cross.  Hence  their  victory  does  not  lie  in 
conquest  or  dominion  or  power,  but  in  defeat  and  weakness,  as  St. 
Paul  says:  "The  weapons  of  our  warfare  are  not  carnal,  but  in 


250  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

God";  and  again,  "His  strength  shall  be  made  perfect  in  our  weak- 
ness." According  to  the  Scripture,  it  is  not  proper  for  anyone 
who  will  be  a  Christian  to  set  himself  up  against  the  authority  that 
God  has  placed  over  him,  be  it  just  or  unjust;  but  a  Christian 
should  suffer  violence  and  wrong,  especially  from  his  sovereign. 
For  although  Imperial  Majesty  does  wrong  and  violates  duty  and 
oath,  his  imperial  sovereignty  is  not  thereby  abolished,  nor  the 
allegiance  of  his  subjects,  as  long  as  the  real  and  the  Electoral 
princes  regard  him  as  Emperor  and  do  not  depose  him.  Yet  though 
an  Emperor  or  prince  break  all  the  commandments  of  God,  he  still 
remains  Emperor  and  prince  and  is  bound  to  God  in  a  higher,  and 
then  to  man  in  a  lower,  degree.  Were  it  right  to  resist  Imperial 
Majesty  when  it  does  wrong,  then  we  might  do  so  in  all  cases, 
and  remain  without  any  authority  and  any  obedience  in  the  world, 
since  every  subject  could  use  this  argument,  that  his  sovereign 
broke  the  laws  of  God.  How  then  shall  we  act?  Let  it  be  granted 
to  Imperial  Majesty  that  no  prince  or  Lord  shall  defend  us 
against  him,  but  that  the  land  and  the  people  lie  open  to  the 
Emperor  as  his  own;  and  God  commands  this,  and  no  one  should 
desire  otherwise  of  his  princes  and  lords.  Everyone  should  then 
stand  for  himself,  and  maintain  his  faith  at  the  risk  of  his  body  and 
his  life,  and  not  drag  the  princes  into  danger  with  him,  or  trouble 
them  with  petitions  for  aid,  but  let  the  Emperor  do  with  his  own 
as  he  will,  so  long  as  he  is  Emperor.  But  if  the  Emperor  desire,  be- 
yond the  fact  that  the  land  and  people  lie  open  to  him,  to  compel 
the  princes  also  to  attack,  besiege,  slay  and  banish  their  subjects 
for  the  Gospel's  sake,  and  the  princes  know  that  in  this  the  Em- 
peror is  wrong,  and  against  God,  then  it  falls  back  upon  their  own 
faith,  for  they  should  not  obey  the  Emperor  in  what  they  do  not 
approve,  not  help  him,  nor  become  partners  of  his  sin;  it  is  enough 
that  the  land  and  the  people  are  left  unprotected  and  the  Emperor 
unhindered,  and  they  should  say:  If  the  Emperor  wishes  to  per- 
secute our  subjects,  as  they  are  also  his  own,  he  may  act  according 
to  his  conscience — we  are  not  able  to  prevent  him.  But  we  will 
not  help  him  to  it,  nor  approve  of  his  course,  for  we  must  obey  God 
rather  than  man. l 

It  was  quite  in  accord  with  these  principles  that,  in  his  earlier  writings, 
Luther  opposed  persecution  of  those  called  heretics.  In  his  "Addres.r' 
to  the  nobility  he  uttered  these  noble  words:  "We  should  overcome 
heretics  with  books,  not  with  fire,  as  the  old  Fathers  did.  If  there  were 
any  skill  in  overcoming  heretics  with  fire,  the  executioner  would  be  the 
most  learned  doctor  in  the  world;  and  there  would  be  no  need  to  study, 
but  he  that  could  gather  another  into  his  power  could  burn  him."  "We 
shall  never  unite  them  by  force,  by  driving  or  hurrying  them.  We  must 

1  Hottinger,  Life  of  Zwingli,  Harrisburg,  1856,  pp.  339-341.  Cf.  letter  to  Elector 
John,  March  6,  1530,  in  De  Wette,  3:  560,  and  Melanchthon's  response  to  the 
same  Elector's  question  whether  it  was  lawful  to  take  the  sword  against  the  Em- 
peror in  self-defense.  CR,  1:  600. 


REFORM  OR  REVOLUTION?  251 

be  patient  and  use  gentleness."  He  repeats  these  ideas  in  his  tract 
on  "Secular  Authority."  Heresy,  he  says,  can  never  be  suppressed 
by  authority;  God's  word  will  overcome  it.  Heresy  is  a  spiritual  thing, 
which  cannot  be  cut  by  any  steel,  or  burned  with  any  fire,  or  drowned  in 
any  water.2  In  1522,  in  a  sermon  against  Carlstadt,  he  said:  "I  will 
preach,  I  will  talk,  I  will  write,  but  I  will  force  and  constrain  no  man 
with  violence,  for  faith  is  by  nature  voluntary  and  uncompelled,  and 
is  to  be  received  without  compulsion." 3  In  1524  he  wrote  to  the  princes 
of  Saxony:  "Your  princely  graces  should  not  restrain  the  office  of  the 
word.  Men  should  be  allowed  confidently  and  freely  to  preach  what  they 
can  and  against  whom  they  will,  for,  as  I  have  said,  there  must  be  sects 
and  the  word  of  God  must  be  afield  and  fight.  ...  If  their  spirit  is 
right,  it  will  not  be  afraid  of  us  and  will  stand  its  ground.  If  ours 
is  right,  it  will  not  be  afraid  of  them  nor  of  any.  We  should  let  the  spirits 
have  free  course."  • 

But  the  thing  to  which  Luther  excepted  most  was  any  attempt  of  the 
people  to  right  their  wrongs  by  force.  There  is  an  apparent  inconsistency 
in  his  words,  but  not  in  his  ideas.  When  he  said  to  the  princes,  "The 
people  will  not  and  can  not  longer  bear  your  tyranny  and  iniquity.  Thus 
is  no  longer  a  world,  as  aforetime,  in  which  you  hunt  and  chase  men  as 
wild  beasts" — he  was  merely  stating  a  fact,  or  giving  a  reasonable  fore- 
cast of  the  future,  not  approving  such  action.  "Insurrection  is  never 
justified,"  he  said,  "for  it  generally  injures  the  innocent  rather  than  the 
guilty.  Therefore  no  rebellion  is  justifiable,  however  just  a  cause  it 
may  have.  The  rioter  does  not  distinguish,  but  when  Herr  Omnes 
rises  he  strikes  into  the  crowd  as  it  stands  and  cannot  help  doing 
grievous  injustice.  No  man  may  be  a  judge  in  his  own  cause;  and 
sedition  is  nothing  less  than  judging  and  avenging  oneself.  God  can- 
not suffer  that."  5 

In  working  out  these  political  theories,  Luther  had  no  ulterior  motives, 
and  was  not  conscious  of  their  possible  utility  in  the  constitutional 
and  social  struggle  then  going  on  in  Germany.  Nor  were  the  princes 
any  better  fitted  than  he  to  appreciate  the  value  of  these  theories  for  the 
extension  of  their  power.  With  the  exception  of  the  Landgrave  of  Hesse, 

1  Wace  and  Bucheim,  pp.  75,  77. 

*  Prop.  33  condemned  by  Leo  X  in  the  bull  of  excommunication,  maintains 
that  "to  burn  heretics  is  contrary  to  the  will  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  In  his  Grund 
und  Ursache  oiler  Artikel  (1520)  Luther  defends  this  proposition.  LDS,  24:  139. 
It  is  interesting  to  note  in  passing  that,  by  this  infallible  decision,  it  remains 
the  doctrine  of  the  Roman  Church  that  it  is  according  to  the  will  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  to  burn  heretics. 

a  LDS,  28:  219. 

«  De  Wette,  2:  547. 

5  Eine  treue  Vermahnung  zu  alien  Christen,  sich  zu  verhuten  vor  Aufruhr  und 
Emporung.  1522.  LDS,  22:  43  seq. 


252  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

none  of  the  princes  had  an  intellect  of  more  than  the  third  grade,  and  he 
shines  rather  by  virtue  of  the  stupidity  of  his  compeers  than  by  his  own 
real  brilliance — in  the  darkness  of  midnight  even  a  tallow  candle  may 
seem  a  great  luminary.  But  even  the  least  intelligent  of  despots  have 
often  manifested  an  instinctive  preference  for  whatever  theory  might 
promote  their  usurpations  and  justify  their  misgovernment.  Thanks 
to  some  such  instinct,  rather  than  to  any  process  of  thought  or  deliberate 
choice,  the  princes  recognized  hi  Luther  and  his  teaching  their  most 
effective  ally.  Elector  Frederick  led  the  way,  but  the  others  did  not  so 
much  follow  him  as  adopt  the  same  course  for  the  same  reasons. 

Charles  V,  though  far  more  intelligent  than  any  of  the  German  princes, 
did  not  understand  the  social  and  political  condition  of  the  Empire. 
During  the  first  decade  of  his  reign  he  was  as  one  who  plays  a  game 
with  old  hands,  not  only  before  he  acquires  skill  but  without  having 
learned  the  rules.  Such  a  one  may  in  tune  become  a  great  player,  but 
for  a  while  his  defeat  is  certain.  Charles  was  unfortunately  compelled 
at  the  very  outset  to  make  choice  between  two  lines  of  policy,  and  while 
he  made  the  only  choice  possible  to  one  of  his  antecedents,  as  well  as 
the  one  pressed  upon  him  by  every  trusted  adviser,  it  was  a  choice  most 
unfortunate  for  the  cause  of  imperial  constitutionalism.  A  revolt  of 
Germany  against  the  Papacy  had  become  a  historical  necessity  and  a 
moral  certainty — it  was  the  only  possible  resultant  of  the  existing  political 
and  social  forces.  If  this  revolt  could  have  been  led  by  the  Emperor, 
he  might  have  made  himself  the  strongest  power  in  the  Empire.  By 
refusing  to  lead,  and  choosing  instead  to  ally  himself  with  the  enemy 
and  plunderer  of  Germany,  he  left  a  great  opportunity  for  the  princes 
to  assume  the  leadership  of  the  national  movement,  and  thus  reduce 
the  imperial  power  to  a  mere  shadow.  Charles  knew  that  he  risked 
his  empire,  but  did  as  his  conscience  directed — and  lost.  The  princes 
only  dimly  comprehended  the  value  of  the  weapon  thus  thrust  into  their 
hands,  but  they  used  it,  albeit  feebly — and  won. 

In  many  ways,  therefore,  the  revolt  of  the  peasants  marks  a  great 
change  in  the  current  of  events.  It  roused  fresh  alarms  among  the  men 
who  were  afraid  of  all  change.  As  matters  progressed,  the  alarm  in- 
creased; complaints  and  threats  were  made.  There  was  much  talk  about 
these  things  at  the  second  Diet  of  Niirnberg.  The  peasants'  uprising 
confirmed  the  fears  of  the  timid,  and  caused  them  to  take  sides  definitely 
against  the  Reformation.  Erasmus  found  in  these  great  disturbances 
a  fulfillment  of  all  his  predictions  and  a  justification  of  his  course  toward 
Luther.  Luther's  vehement  opposition  to  the  enthusiasts  separated 
him  from  them,  not  only  in  fact  but  also  in  the  public  mind.  And  thus 
there  was  a  sifting,  a  gathering  of  like  to  like.  Luther  separated  him- 


REFORM  OR  REVOLUTION?  253 

self  from  the  violent  and  fanatical;  the  cautious  and  conservative  sepa- 
rated themselves  from  him.  To  use  the  figure  so  often  used  by  Luther, 
Erasmus  and  others,  the  plot  of  the  "tragedy"  was  rapidly  unfolding 
itself.  In  the  confusion  of  voices  it  was  beginning  to  be  understood 
which  one  was  to  lead,  and  whether  Luther  had  demonstrated  his  power 
to  control  as  well  as  to  raise  the  tempest.  Nothing  in  his  whole  life 
is  more  impressive,  more  indicative  of  power,  than  the  way  in  which 
he  evoked  order  out  of  threatening  chaos.  As  he  alone  could  have  aroused 
the  storm,  so  he  alone  could  have  guided  it.  Bold  spirit  as  he  was,  he 
was  for  a  time  frightened  at  the  tempest  he  had  raised,  and  shrank  from 
the  consequences  of  his  earlier  teaching.1  He  had  once  repudiated  all 
authority  in  religion;  he  was  now  about  to  fall  back  on  it.  Only,  it 
was  the  authority  of  the  princes  on  which  he  would  henceforth  rely, 
instead  of  that  of  Pope  and  Emperor,  which  he  continued  to  reject. 
In  a  few  more  years  the  early  Luther  was  to  vanish  utterly. 

In  the  confusion  and  excitement  following  the  peasants'  war,  Luther 
married.  What  he  had  been  doing  since  his  return  from  the  Wartburg 
had  looked  mainly  to  the  separation  of  his  work  from  things  that  did  not 
belong  to  it.  His  marriage  is  of  positive,  formative  significance:  it 
belongs  to  Lutheranism.  July  24,  1525,  Melanchthon  wrote  to  his 
friend  Camerarius,  "June  13,  without  giving  previous  intimation  to 
any  of  his  friends  what  he  intended  to  do,  Luther  married  Bora."  It 
was  Catherine  von  Bora2  whom  he  married,  a  nun  of  Nimpsch,  educated 
in  the  convent  there,  taking  the  vows  when  she  was  sixteen  years  old 
and  with  eight  others  escaping  April  5,  1523.  Two  days  afterwards 
she  and  the  rest  were  in  Wittenberg  and  saw  Luther  for  the  first  time. 
From  the  beginning  Luther  interested  himself  in  her  welfare.  He  made 
several  attempts  to  find  a  husband  for  her,  failing  at  one  time  because 
the  man  did  not  want  her,  and  at  another  because  she  did  not  want 
the  man.  She  was  born  in  January,  1499,  poor  but  of  noble  family, 
"not  remarkable  for  beauty,"  but  a  healthy,  strong,  frank  and  true 
German  woman.  So  her  biographers  speak  of  her,  and  her  portraits 
by  Cranach  tell  the  same  story.  From  the  half-playful,  half-deferential, 
always  affectionate  way  in  which  he  alludes  to  her,  it  is  difficult  to  de- 
termine the  exact  place  that  she  held  in  Luther's  heart  and  mind.  He 
was  too  strong,  too  self-reliant,  to  need  the  help  of  a  wife  in  his  public 

1  Erasmus  said  in  his  Hyperaspiates:  "We  have  the  fruit  of  your  spirit.     The 
mother  has  gone  forward  to  bloody  slaughter,  and  we  fear  more  atrocious  things, 
unless  God  shall  mercifully  avert  them.  .  .  .  You  have  indeed  in  your  most 
bitter  little  book  against  the  peasants  turned  suspicion  from  yourself;  and  yet 
you  cannot  make  men  believe  that  the  occasion  of  these  tumults  was  not  furnished 
by  your  pamphlets,  especially  those  in  German.     But  O  Luther,  I  do  not  yet 
think  so  ill  of  you  as  to  suppose  that  you  intended  this."    Op.,  10:  1256.  E. 

2  See  the  admirable  biography,  Katharina  von  Bora,  by  Albrecht  Thoma,  Ber- 
lin, 1900,  especially  the  last  two  chapters. 


254  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

work;  too  tender,  too  childlike,  too  full  of  sympathy  with  life  not  to  find 
comfort  in  a  home.  But  it  is  not  the  marriage  of  the  man,  but  of  the 
reformer,  the  leader  of  a  great  public  movement,  that  concerns  us.1 

The  enemies  of  the  Reformation  said  that  the  reformers  acted  over 
again  the  tragedy  of  Troy,  and  like  Paris  involved  the  world  in  trouble 
and  wars  for  the  sake  of  women.  The  saying  was  intended  partly  as  a 
jest;  in  some  cases  it  was  altogether  unjust.  Luther  certainly  had  no 
thought  of  marriage  in  the  beginning  of  his  work,  and  in  marrying  later 
he  was  influenced  by  several  considerations.  First,  but  probably  not 
chief,  he  was  lonely.  His  monastery  had  been  deserted  by  all  save 
himself  and  his  prior.  October  9,  1524,  he  threw  off  his  monk's  cowl  and 
appeared  in  church  in  the  dress  of  a  priest,  but  he  still  lived  in  the  monas- 
tery. Full  of  labors,  wearied,  he  cast  himself  down  at  night  on  a  bed 
that  for  months  was  not  made  and  on  which  the  mildew  gathered.  How- 
ever it  might  be  for  others,  it  evidently  was  not  good  for  him  to  be  alone; 
possibly  his  forlorn  condition  suggested  to  him  the  divine  provision 
against  loneliness.  Then  he  was  no  doubt  influenced  by  the  same  general 
motives  that  influence  other  men.  Besides  these,  however,  the  thought 
that  it  would  please  his  father  for  him  fully  to  undo  the  wrong  that 
he  had  committed  in  becoming  a  monk  may  have  had  weight  with  him. 
But  more  than  by  all  other  considerations  combined,  he  thought  that 
he  was  influenced  by  what  he  owed  to  the  truth  of  God. 

It  is  doubtful  whether  he  at  once  realized  the  full  significance  of  what 
he  was  doing.  In  this,  as  almost  always,  he  followed  present  inclinations, 
lived  by  the  day,  and  took  no  thought  for  the  morrow.  Melanchthon  in- 
timates this  when  he  remarks  on  the  time  of  the  marriage;  the  perplexity 
and  anxiety  of  other  men  and  Luther's  apparent  unconsciousness  of 
what  was  troubling  everyone  else.  Far  more  than  he  could  have  thought 
he  was  influencing  the  character  of  a  great  institution  and  the  lives  of 
thousands  of  men.  The  significance  of  his  marriage  appears  from  the 
manner  in  which  it  was  regarded.  Of  course  the  papal  party  was  scan- 
dalized. What  Melanchthon  thought  may  be  taken  as  indicating  the 
feelings  of  moderate  Lutherans:  Luther,  he  thought,  had  committed 
no  sin,  and  was  not  to  be  blamed;  marriage  was  a  holy  life  and  spoken 
of  as  honorable  in  the  Scriptures;  the  time  of  the  marriage,  however, 
was  not  wisely  chosen.  He  noticed  that  Luther  "was  sadder  than  usual 
after  his  marriage,  and  disturbed  by  the  change  in  his  life,"  evidently 

1  Melanchthon's  letter  to  Camerarius  is  our  chief  authority  for  the  details  of 
Luther's  marriage.  CR,  1 :  754  seq.  For  Luther's  ideal  of  marriage  see  his  sermon 
of  1525.  LDS,  16:  165  seq.  The  circumstance  that  the  bodies  of  a  hundred  thou- 
sand German  peasants  lay  rotting  where  they  had  been  slain  does  not  seem  to 
have  cast  a  cloud  over  his  wedding  feast,  or  spoiled  his  appetite  for  the  game  that 
his  friend  doubtless  sent  him  as  requested.  Letter  to  Spalatin,  June  16,  1525. 
Currie,  149;  De  Wette,  3:  2. 


REFORM  OR  REVOLUTION?  255 

not  at  ease  in  mind.  He  did  not  say  that  Luther  had  fallen,  but  men- 
tioned in  connection  with  him  the  fact  that  God  often  permits  his  ser- 
vants to  fall,  that  his  children  might  rely  on  his  word,  rather  than  on 
the  authority  of  any  person,  however  great.  It  is  clear  that,  on  the  whole, 
he  would  have  been  better  pleased  if  Luther  had  not  married;  and  the 
fact  that  Melanchthon  so  felt  shows  how  easy  it  would  have  been  for 
the  old  feeling  against  the  marriage  of  the  clergy  to  have  continued  among 
the  reformers,  and  for  them  to  have  divided  on  that  question.  The 
example  of  Luther,  if  he  had  not  married,  would  have  told  powerfully 
in  favor  of  clerical  celibacy.  On  the  other  hand,  his  marriage  was  de- 
cisive, and  settled  the  question  among  Protestants  forever. 

With  the  changing  and  development  of  the  movement  the  actors 
were  also  changing.  Carlstadt  dropped  out  or  was  thrust  out.  Erasmus 
first  became  suspicious,  then  lukewarm  and  then  hostile  to  Luther's 
work.  There  were  two  others  closely  connected  with  Luther  who  at 
this  time  passed  away.  The  first  of  these  was  Staupitz,  Luther's  early 
friend,  his  discoverer,  teacher,  patron.  The  date  of  his  birth  is  not 
known,  but  while  Luther  was  yet  a  student  he  was  occupying  positions 
of  prominence.  He  was  not  a  reformer,  but  he  was  a  representative  of 
the  more  spiritual  phase  of  the  current  religion.  His  pupil  soon  overtook 
him  and  went  beyond  him.  He  was  with  Luther  at  Augsburg  at  the 
time  of  the  interview  with  Cajetan,  and  rendered  good  service  by  his 
sympathy  and  advice,  but  even  then  he  had  sought  refuge  from  the 
coming  storm.  He  had  gone  to  Salzburg,  where  in  a  little  while  (1522) 
he  became  prior  of  the  Benedictine  monastery.  It  was  with  him  as  with 
Erasmus,  he  was  with  neither  party.  Luther  blamed  him,  he  blamed 
Luther,  but  neither  could  forget  what  they  had  been  to  each  other 
and  they  never  ceased  to  be  friends.  He  died  in  15241 

It  was  in  the  midst  of  the  peasants'  uprising  that  the  Elector  Fred- 
erick died,  May  5,  1525,  weary,  disappointed,  sick  at  heart.  "Alas,"  he 
said,  "if  it  were  God's  will  I  should  die  with  joy.  I  see  neither  love  nor 
truth,  nor  any  good  thing  remaining  upon  earth."  He  had  been  Luther's 
most  powerful  friend;  had  done  for  him  what  no  one  else  in  the  world 
could  do;  and  what  he  himself  could  not  have  done  had  he  been  other 
than  he  was.  It  was  his  wisdom,  his  moderation,  his  conservatism,  that 
enabled  him  to  protect  Luther.  It  was  as  a  genuine,  unsuspected  Catholic 
that  he  stood  by  the  monk  of  Wittenberg  and  demanded  justice  for  him. 
In  any  other  character  he  would  not  have  been  heard  at  Augsburg  or 
at  Worms  or  at  Niirnberg.  But  circumstances  were  now  changed.  A 
party  had  been  formed;  something  was  to  be  done;  and  it  was  not  a 

1  Th.  Kolde,  Die  deutsche  Augustiner-Congregation  und  Johann  von  Staupitz, 
Gotha,  1879,  esp.  pp.  343-354. 


256  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

protector,  but  a  leader,  that  was  wanted.  The  good  and  wise  and  brave 
Frederick  had  done  his  work;  if  he  had  lived  longer  he  might  have  been 
in  the  way,  and  so  he  died.  He  was  sixty-two  years  old,  and  had  been 
Duke  and  Elector  thirty-nine  years. 

Frederick  had  continued  to  the  end  his  mediating  position.  The 
only  distinctly  Protestant  act  of  his  life  was  his  partaking  on  his  death- 
bed of  the  communion  in  both  kinds.  He  was  buried  in  the  castle  church 
at  Wittenberg,  without  Roman  rites,  Luther  and  Melanchthon  conducting 
the  services,  but  this  perhaps  expresses  the  wish  of  his  successor  rather 
than  his  own.  He  was  succeeded  by  his  brother,  John,  afterwards  sur- 
named  the  Constant,  a  man  of  less  ability  and  prudence,  but  of  greater 
boldness.  He  was  not  only  the  staunch  friend  of  Luther,  but  his  docile 
pupil  and  follower;  during  his  reign  (1525-1532)  it  is  hardly  exaggeration 
to  say  that  in  things  religious  Luther  was  the  real  ruler  of  Saxony.  John 
allied  himself  with  Philip  of  Hesse,  both  now  declared  openly  for  re- 
form, and  to  this  alliance  was  due  the  great  series  of  changes  in  ecclesias- 
tical affairs  that  marked  the  next  five  years  in  Germany.  Reformation 
was  now  to  begin  in  earnest. 


CHAPTER  V 

THE  FIRST  DIET  OF  SPEYEB  AND  THE  NEW  CHURCH  ORDER 

FOR  five  years  forces  had  been  working  independently  in  Germany. 
There  had  been  no  coercion  or  repression  or  active  interference  from 
without.  What  the  Germans  had  done  they  had  done  of  their  own  accord, 
and  they  equally  followed  their  own  will  in  what  they  did  not  do.  The 
condemned  Luther  continued  to  teach  in  the  university  of  Wittenberg, 
to  enjoy  the  friendship  of  the  Elector,  to  come  and  go  without  let  or 
hindrance,  and  in  all  respects  to  be  and  act  as  if  there  had  never  been  a 
bull  of  excommunication  or  an  imperial  edict  against  him.  Neither  the 
Emperor  nor  yet  the  imperial  Diet  raised  a  hand  against  him.  No  one 
was  willing  to  take  the  responsibility  of  beginning  a  war  of  parties.  The 
uncertainty  and  danger  involved  in  any  positive  repressive  measures 
compelled  a  policy  of  inaction :  there  was  a  drifting,  an  unresisting  move- 
ment with  the  tide.  This  policy  of  inaction  did  not  please  the  Emperor, 
who  insisted  on  the  enforcement  of  the  edict  of  Worms,  but  was  power- 
less to  compel  obedience  to  his  will.  The  conditions  were  wanting  in 
which  he  could  be  formidable  to  the  new  party.  He  was  at  war  with 
France;  part  of  the  time  there  were  serious  disturbances  in  Spain;  all 
the  time  danger  was  more  or  less  imminent  from  the  Turks.  Ever  since 
the  second  Diet  at  Niirnberg,  it  was  clear  that  only  the  Emperor  could 
repress  the  Lutherans;  and,  as  we  have  already  seen,  he  could  do  it 
only  when  he  was  at  peace  with  his  neighbors. 

His  greatest  difficulty  arose  from  his  relations  with  the  French.  His 
first  efforts  against  them  in  Italy  had  been  successful:  Milan  was  taken; 
Francis  Sforza,  the  lawful  Duke,  was  reinstated;  and  Parma  and  Pla- 
centia  were  restored  to  the  Papal  See.  But  this  did  not  end  the(  war. 
The  only  logical  end  to  it  was  the  overthrow  of  one  of  the  parties,  and 
in  the  circumstances  this  was  not  easy  of  accomplishment.  Both  powers 
were  great  in  resources  and  both  were  ambitious.  There  was,  however, 
no  regular  system  of  taxation  or  certain  source  of  revenue,  and  conse- 
quently no  national  credit,  properly  so  called.  As  a  rule,  a  battle  was 
the  end  of  a  victorious,  as  well  as  of  a  beaten,  army;  the  one  was  scattered 
by  defeat,  the  other  was  disbanded  for  lack  of  money  to  keep  it  to- 
gether. When  by  loan,  or  gift,  or  extraordinary  levy  there  was  a  new 
supply  of  money,  there  could  be  new  armies  and  a  renewal  of  the  war. 
When  so  small  a  thing  as  the  possession  of  a  few  hundred  thousand 

257 


258  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

crowns  could  give  one  of  the  great  sovereigns  a  dangerous  prominence, 
it  necessarily  followed  that  treaties  and  alliances  had  no  stability.  The 
confederates  of  one  year  might  easily  be  the  antagonists  of  another. 

The  war  between  the  Emperor  and  Francis  I,  with  its  alternations  of 
failure  and  success,  might  have  gone  on  indefinitely  but  for  the  stubborn 
pride  of  Francis.  Having  collected  a  large  army  in  the  fall  of  1524, 
he  invaded  Italy  in  person,  crossing  the  Alps  at  Mont  Cenis,  and  by 
rapid  marches  reaching  and  taking  Milan  before  necessary  means  for 
its  defense  could  be  brought  together.  There  was  substantially  no  im- 
perial or  other  force  to  oppose  him,  and  by  well  directed  energy  he  might 
have  crushed  the  small  Spanish  army  that  had  abandoned  Milan,  be- 
cause too  weak  to  defend  it.  But  as  his  fortune  would  have  it,  he  at- 
tempted the  taking  of  Pavia,  into  which  his  enemies  threw  a  garrison  of 
six  thousand  men,  commanded  by  Antonio  de  Levya,  a  brave,  skillful, 
resolute  officer.  For  a  time  Francis  had  an  open  field  and  could  conduct 
the  siege  in  his  own  way.  There  was  no  outside  force  to  disturb  him,  and 
as  time  passed  on  the  spectacle  of  a  French  army  besieging  an  imperial 
garrison  as  if  it  were  a  matter  in  which  no  one  else  had  any  concern, 
became  a  subject  of  ridicule.  The  wits  of  Rome  offered  a  reward  to 
anyone  who  would  find  the  imperial  army,  that  since  October  had  been 
lost.  It  was  not  altogether  lost,  but  it  was  far  too  weak  to  risk  a  battle 
with  the  French.  Levya  must  hold  out  until  his  friends  could  collect 
a  force  for  his  relief.  The  duty  of  collecting  this  force  fell  on  three  men : 
Lannoy,  the  viceroy  of  Naples;  Pescara,  the  commander  of  the  imperial 
army  that  had  fled  before  Francis;  and  Bourbon,  who  had  been  driven 
by  slight,  suspicion  and  injury  to  revolt  against  his  sovereign,  the  French 
king.  These  men  exerted  themselves  to  the  utmost  and  succeeded. 

In  the  meantime  things  had  been  moving  in  Italy.  The  Pope,  Clement 
VII,  thinking  that  the  success  of  Francis  was  assured,  withdrew  his 
sympathies  from  Charles  V  and  concluded  a  treaty  of  neutrality  with 
Francis,  influenced  by  the  humiliating  necessity  of  siding  with  the  stronger 
party.  The  Pope's  neutrality  gave  Francis  an  open  way  to  Naples, 
and  he  accordingly  detached  six  thousand  men  to  operate  against  that 
city.  The  imperial  generals  disregarded  this  movement  and  gave  them- 
selves to  the  relief  of  Pavia.  At  last,  in  February,  they  had  in  hand  an 
army  nearly  equal  to  that  of  the  French.  There  were  two  things  that 
Francis  might  do:  recall  the  detachment  sent  toward  Naples,  and 
thus  secure  a  decided  advantage  in  numbers;  or  withdraw  from  Pavia 
and  avoid  the  risk  of  a  doubtful  engagement.  The  second  was  probably 
the  wisest,  for  the  imperialists  were  without  money,  and  the  prospect  of 
battle  and  the  spoils  of  victory  was  the  only  thing  that  kept  them  to- 
gether. To  fight  might  mean  ample  reward;  not  to  fight  meant  certain 


SPEYER  AND  THE  NEW  CHURCH  ORDER  259 

disintegration.  Francis  did  the  very  thing  that  his  enemies  wished:  he 
had  said  that  he  would  take  Pa  via  or  die  in  the  attempt,  and  so  he  fought. 
He  was  beaten;  he  was  taken;  his  army  was  destroyed.  "Madam,  all 
is  lost  save  honor,"  he  wrote  to  his  mother,  who  in  his  absence  was  regent 
of  France. 

The  battle  of  Pavia  was  fought  February  24,  1525.  The  immediate 
result  was  the  imprisonment  of  Francis.  He  was  taken  to  Madrid  and 
kept  in  close  confinement  for  more  than  a  year.  He  expected  to  be 
treated  with  a  kind  of  chivalrous  courtesy,  and  he  was  grievously  dis- 
appointed. Whatever  pity  Charles  may  have  felt  for  his  royal  captive, 
he  determined  to  make  the  most  of  his  opportunity.  He  did  not  visit 
Francis  but  kept  him  hi  seclusion  and  gave  him  no  intimation  of  the 
time  or  terms  of  his  release.  The  plan  was  to  wear  out  his  patience  and 
subdue  his  spirit,  so  that  he  would  be  willing  to  accept  any  conditions. 
Francis  was,  indeed,  reduced  to  the  utmost  straits;  he  became  ill,  he 
was  expected  to  die,  and  his  calm  and  politic  jailor  was  compelled  to 
give  him  some  hope  in  order  to  save  his  life.  In  his  desperation  and 
resentment,  Francis  seriously  thought  of  abdicating  the  throne.  All 
these  things  reminded  Charles  that  by  delaying  he  might  lose  all — a 
dead  king,  or  an  abdicated  king,  would  not  serve  his  purpose.  He  at 
length  concluded  to  offer  Francis  terms.  They  were  sufficiently  severe: 
Francis  was  to  surrender  the  Duchy  of  Burgundy,  formerly  belonging 
to  Charles's  ancestors,  but  for  forty  years  a  part  of  France;  he  was  to 
renounce  all  title  to  Naples,  Milan,  Asta,  Genoa  and  Flanders;  he  was 
to  carry  on  no  secret  designs  in  Italy;  when  the  Emperor  wished  to 
go  into  Italy  he  was  to  furnish  sixteen  galleys,  properly  equipped,  and 
two  hundred  thousand  crowns  with  which  to  man  and  arm  them;  he 
was  to  pay  the  pension  that  the  Emperor  owed  Henry  VIII  for  service 
against  himself;  he  was  to  restore  the  Duke  of  Bourbon  to  all  his  rights 
and  privileges  in  France;  was  to  leave  two  of  his  sons  in  Spain  as  pledges 
for  the  fulfillment  of  the  treaty;  and  in  case  he  failed  to  carry  it  out  he 
promised  to  return  to  Madrid  as  a  prisoner. 

These  are  only  a  part  of  the  hard  conditions.  Francis  signed  them, 
but  at  the  same  time  secretly  protested  in  due  form  that  he  was  forced 
to  it,  and  that  the  whole  transaction  was  null  and  of  no  force.  He  was 
not  at  once  released;  the  treaty  had  first  to  be  sent  to  France,  to  be 
ratified  by  the  regent.  That  having  been  done  he  was  permitted  to 
proceed  under  escort  to  his  own  dominions;1  and,  on  reaching  French 

1  As  he  was  going  toward  France  and  freedom  his  two  sons,  the  Dauphin  and 
the  Duke  of  Orleans,  were  traveling  toward  Spain  and  captivity.  The  parties 
met  at  the  river  Andaye,  the  boundary  between  the  two  countries,  in  the  middle 
of  which  an  empty  boat  was  moored.  With  an  escort  of  eight  gentlemen,  Francis 
was  rowed  out  to  the  boat  from  the  Spanish  side;  and  with  a  similar  escort  the 


260  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

soil,  it  is  said  that  he  mounted  a  horse  and  galloped  away,  shouting, 
"I  am  still  a  king!" 

In  addition  to  the  terms  of  the  treaty  already  mentioned,  the  two 
sovereigns  agreed  to  extirpate  the  enemies  of  the  Christian  religion, 
and  the  heresies  of  the  sect  of  the  Lutherans.  After  public  affairs  had 
been  settled,  they  were  to  make  war  against  the  Turks  and  excommuni- 
cated heretics.  They  were  also  to  arrange  for  a  meeting  of  representatives 
of  all  Christian  nations,  at  which  plans  were  to  be  devised  for  a  general 
war  in  accordance  with  the  wishes  of  the  Pope.  The  whole  force  of 
Christendom  was  to  be  directed  against  Turks  and  heretics.  The  Em- 
peror had  in  mind  to  use  the  very  first  opportunity  to  execute  his  office 
as  guardian  of  the  faith  and  protector  of  the  Holy  See.  If  he  had  truly 
been  at  peace,  as  he  thought  he  was,  the  course  of  history  might  have 
been  different.  But  so  far  from  settling  all  things,  the  battle  of  Pavia 
and  the  subsequent  treaty  of  Madrid  but  prepared  the  way  for  new 
combinations  and  the  renewal  of  the  war. 

The  Emperor's  victory  had  been  too  complete;  it  had  given  him 
dangerous  ascendancy  in  Europe;  especially  did  it  make  him  too  powerful 
in  Italy,  from  which  the  French  were  now  entirely  excluded.  In  the 
long,  exciting,  often  bloody  game  of  politics,  no  success  was  to  be  per- 
mitted that  destroyed  the  balance  of  power.  The  permanent  weakening 
of  France  meant  danger  to  the  Pope  and  to  Italian  liberties.1  The 
Emperor  already  held  Naples  in  the  South;  he  was  suspected  of  designs  on 
Milan  in  the  North;  he  might,  if  he  chose,  be  master  of  the  whole  country. 
Coincident  with  the  dread  of  the  Emperor  and  auxiliary  to  it,  the  col- 
lapse of  the  French  power,  suggesting  the  possibility  of  freedom  from 
foreign  control,  produced  a  spasm  of  patriotism,  and  there  was  a  dream 
of  a  united  and  independent  Italy.  The  Italians  were  disposed  to  move 
in  their  own  behalf.  Lannoy  at  Naples  was  particularly  hated  by  them. 
Pescara,  an  Italian  by  birth,  and  admired  for  his  nobility  and  courage, 
commanded  the  Spanish  army  in  the  Norths  Morone,  a  plausible, 
able  politician,  proposed  to  him  that  he  should  distribute  his  soldiers 
in  small  parties  among  the  villages  of  the  Milanese,  with  an  under- 
standing that  on  a  designated  night  the  people  should  rise  and  massacre 
them.  The  Spanish  army  out  of  the  way,  Pescara,  by  the  help  of  the 
Italians,  was  to  get  possession  of  Naples  and  hold  the  throne  under  the 
Pope.  It  was  a  bold  scheme.  The  difficulty  in  the  way  of  its  success 

young  princes  approached  from  the  French  side.  For  a  little  while  father  and  sons 
lingered  on  the  boat  prepared  to  receive  them,  and  then  parted,  the  king  hastening 
to  reach  his  own  land. 

1  The  Cardinal  (afterwards  Clement  VII)  seeing  those  two  powers  of  Spain 
and  France  divided  in  such  a  manner  that  peace  could  hardly  be  hoped  for  unless 
one  were  balanced  equally  against  the  other,  etc.  Instruction  to  Cardinal  Farnese, 
Ranke,  3:  69. 


SPEYER  AND  THE  NEW  CHURCH  ORDER  261 

was  that  Pescara  was  not  consistently  a  traitor:  he  made  known  the 
whole  plot  to  the  Emperor.1 

In  point  of  fact,  however,  this  was  the  most  favorable  tune  that  the 
Papacy  was  to  have  during  this  age  for  suppressing  the  revolt  against 
its  authority  and  consolidating  its  real  power.  Charles  and  Francis, 
at  odds  about  everything  else,  were  alike  in  their  opposition  to  innovations 
in  religion,  and  were  willing  to  aid  the  head  of  the  Church  in  recovering 
and  maintaining  his  spiritual  authority.  Had  a  Hildebrand  or  an  Inno- 
cent then  sat  on  the  throne  of  Peter,  a  Pope  who  would  have  put  before 
all  else  the  interests  of  the  Church,  the  history  of  Europe  might  have 
been  far  other  than  it  proved  to  be  under  Clement  VII.  For  that  Pontiff 
could  not  forget  that  he  was  of  the  Medici  house;  he  was  an  Italian 
princeling  before  he  was  Pope;  his  secular  interests  and  political  am- 
bitions, not  his  devotion  to  the  Church,  held  first  place  in  his  mind  and 
heart.  He  was  much  more  concerned  to  preserve  his  secular  dominions 
and  promote  the  fortunes  of  his  family  than  he  was  to  maintain  the 
unity  of  the  Church — better  Germany  should  be  lost  to  the  Church  than 
Florence  to  the  Medici.  Or,  probably,  as  he  viewed  the  matter,  it  was 
impossible  for  him  to  be  anything  else  than  the  head  of  the  Church, 
while  he  might  easily  lose  his  principality  and  his  family  might  be  driven 
into  exile.  A  little  while  before,  when  the  invasion  of  Francis  had  alarmed 
him,  he  had  welcomed  the  intervention  of  Charles  and  hailed  him  as  a 
deliverer;  now  he  began  to  fear  that  in  his  savior  he  and  his  family  might 
find  a  master.  He  feared  that  Charles  might  attack  Rome  and  make  it 
part  of  the  Empire,  or  that  he  would  call  a  council  and  abridge  the 
Pope's  authority.  He  was  disappointed,  soured,  alienated,  as  well  as 
frightened.  He  had  come  to  that  point  where  he  remembered  all  his 
favors  to  the  Emperor  and  forgot  all  the  Emperor's  favors  to  him.  He 
wrote  a  long  letter  of  complaint,  which  concluded  with  a  threat:  if 
the  Emperor  did  not  cease  his  wrong-doing,  his  interference  in  Italy 
and  the  troubling  of  other  parts  of  Christendom,  he  would  move  just 
and  holy  arms  against  him  to  defend  the  public  safety  and  his  own 
dignity.2  This  letter  was  dated  June  23d.  After  he  had  sent  it  he  had 
misgivings  and  the  next  day  he  sent  another  letter  of  a  more  moderate 
tone,  in  which  he  made  no  reference  to  the  first. 

The  Emperor  had  also  offended  Henry  VIII,  partly  by  neglecting  his 

1  Robertson  says  that  Pescara  hesitated  at  first,  favoring  the   plan,  but  that 
his  courage  or    his    conscience   failed    him  ("Charles  V,"  2:  99,   100.)      Ranke 
("Popes,"  1:  78)  is  of  a  different  opinion.     He  quotes  an  Italian  description  of 
Pescara:  "He  was  proud  beyond  measure,  envious,  ungrateful,  greedy,  violent 
and  cruel;  without  religion,  without  humanity;  he  was  born  for  the  very  destruc- 
tion of  Italy."    Morone  said  there  was  no  man  more  faithless  than  Pescara.    Ranke 
holds  that  he  at  once  revealed  Morone's  scheme. 

2  Sarpi,  35. 


262  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

interests  in  the  treaty  of  Madrid,  and  partly  by  carrying  himself  some- 
what too  haughtily  in  his  good  fortune.  In  former  times  he  had  written 
to  Henry  in  his  own  hand,  signing  himself,  "Your  affectionate  son  and 
cousin";  now  he  made  use  of  a  secretary  and  signed  himself  " Charles," 
without  any  flattering  addition.  Henry  also  and  especially  had  in  mind 
the  maintenance  of  the  balance  of  power  in  Europe ;  he  had,  too,  a  sin- 
cere pity  for  "a  brother  king"  in  distress  and  a  generous  desire  to  help 
him.  He  therefore  broke  with  the  Emperor  and  took  sides  with  his 
enemies.  In  a  little  while  all  the  parties  who  had  been  in  alliance  with 
Charles  were  in  league  against  him. 

He  had  failed  in  his  expectations  of  peace,  not  simply  because  the 
conditions  imposed  on  Francis  were  too  severe,  but  because  he  had  no 
means  of  enforcing  them.    His  victorious  army  at  Pavia  came  near  being 
changed  into  a  mutinous  army,  because  he  had  no  money  with  which  to 
pay  it.   With  money  he  might  have  followed  up  his  advantage  and  crushed 
or  intimidated  his  enemies.    As  it  was,  the  only  real  guarantee  of  the 
fulfillment  of  the  treaty  was  the  honor  of  Francis  I;  and  Francis,  having 
sworn  to  his  own  hurt,  was  not  the  man  not  to  change.    On  the  other 
hand,  situated  as  Charles  was — his  enemy  active,  vigilant,  irrepressible, 
in  his  hands — it  is  not  strange  that  he  demanded  so  much.    He  was  not 
ashamed  of  the  treaty.    "The  conditions  are  such,"  he  said,  "as  I  would 
not  have  kept  secret,  for  this  tends  both  to  the  maintaining  of  the  public 
peace  and  to  the  restraining  of  the  enemies  of  Christendom."     The 
fact  that  Francis  at  once  repudiated  them,  and  that  the  Pope  at  once 
absolved  him  from  any  obligation  to  keep  them,  is  Charles's  best  justi- 
fication for  imposing  them.    His  only  way  to  keep  his  enemy  from  being 
dangerous  was  to  make  him  powerless.    There  was  no  court  then  in  the 
world  that  would  keep  faith  if  it  seemed  more  profitable  to  break  it. 
That  Charles  thought  the  treaty  with  Francis  was  worth  anything  seems 
then  to  need  explanation:  he  probably  trusted  him  as  a  knight  of  chivalry, 
and  a  knight  was  expected  to  be  truthful.    It  was  disgraceful  for  him  not 
to  be  so — in  violating  his  word  he  forfeited  his  honor.     But  Charles 
failed  to  bear  in  mind  that  Francis  as  a  knight  and  Francis  as  the  head 
of  a  great  people  were  two  distinct  persons.    As  a  knight,  he  might  feel 
bound  to  keep  faith;  as  a  king  he  felt  bound  to  break  it.    There  was 
one  rule  for  the  conduct  of  the  individual  gentleman,  another  for  the 
conduct  of  States.    It  was  the  interest  of  Charles  that  Francis  should 
be  governed  by  one;  it  was  the  interest  of  Francis  to  be  governed  by  the 
other.     But  if  Charles  expected  Francis  to  be  governed  by  nice  senti- 
ments of  honor,  he  ought  himself  to  have  been  governed  by  the  same, 
and  to  have  treated  his  captive  with  the  chivalry  that  was  expected. 
As  he  failed  in  this,  the  sympathies  of  Europe  were  against  him;  men 


SPEYER  AND  THE  NEW  CHURCH  ORDER  263 

thought  more  of  his  hardness  in  imposing  the  treaty  than  of  Francis's 
perfidy  in  its  violation. 

But  Charles's  treatment  of  Francis  was  only  one  factor  in  the  case; 
the  most  influential  thing  in  determining  the  course  of  events  was  the 
sense  of  insecurity  produced  by  the  Emperor's  prominence  and  success. 
There  was  a  general  feeling  that  he  must  be  weakened  and  restrained. 
Hence  a  league  was  formed  against  him,  the  active  parties  to  which 
were  Francis  I,  the  Pope  and  the  Venetians.  At  first  Henry  VIII  was 
favorable  but  not  active.  The  confederates  pledged  themselves  to  main- 
tain an  army  of  thirty-five  thousand  foot  and  six  thousand  horse,  and  a 
fleet  of  twenty-eight  galleys.  Their  first  object  was  to  expel  the  Em- 
peror's forces  from  Lombardy  and  Italy.  This  particularly  'concerned 
the  fortunes  of  Milan  and  of  Francis  Sf orza,  who  had  suffered  at  the  hands 
of  both  French  and  imperialists.  Now  he  was  to  be  put  in  possession 
of  his  Duchy,  to  which  Francis  was  to  give  up  all  claim,  in  consideration 
of  fifty  thousand  crowns  annually  paid.  After  affairs  in  the  North 
were  arranged,  an  attack  was  to  be  made  on  Naples,  which  on  being  taken 
was  to  be  turned  over  to  the  Pope  as  part  of  the  patrimony  of  St.  Peter. 
But  as  Francis  also  had  claims  on  Naples,  he  was  to  receive  an  additional 
sum  of  seventy-five  thousand  crowns  a  year,  as  compensation  for  the 
surrender  of  these  claims.  The  Pope  was  anxious  about  the  fate  of 
Florence,  and  the  confederates  pledged  themselves  to  maintain  the 
rule  of  the  Medici  in  that  city.  In  addition  to  the  money  compensation 
for  Milan  and  Naples,  Francis  was  to  have  help  in  forcing  the  Emperor 
to  restore  his  sons,  held  as  hostages  in  Spain.  The  Venetians  would  be 
sufficiently  rewarded  in  the  happy  riddance  of  Italy  from  foreign  control, 
and  especially  in  freedom  from  the  dangers  threatening  their  own  ter- 
ritory. The  league  was  formed  May  22d,  a  whole  month  before  the 
Pope's  threatening  letter  was  written. 

While  his  enemies  were  secretly  combining  against  him,  the  Emperor 
was  turning  his  attention  to  the  affairs  of  Germany.  A  full  Diet  met  at 
Speyer,  June  25th.  It  was  opened  by  the  Emperor's  deputies,  the  chief 
of  whom  was  his  brother,  Ferdinand.  As  at  the  two  Diets  at  Nurn- 
berg,  the  chief  things  to  receive  consideration  were  the  public  peace  and 
the  state  of  religion.  The  deputies  said  that  above  all  things  it  was 
the  Emperor's  will  and  command,  that  the  Estates  of  the  Empire  should 
take  such  action  that  the  Christian  religion  and  the  ancient  rites  and 
customs  of  the  Church  might  be  entirely  and  universally  retained;  and 
that  if  any  should  resist  this  by  force,  they  might  be  punished;  and  also 
that  the  edict  of  Worms,  published  five  years  before,  might  be  ob- 
served and  put  in  force.  Amid  the  changing  fortunes  of  war,  and  now 
with  the  return  of  peace,  the  Emperor  resisted  all  change  hi  religion. 


264  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

His  purpose  of  coercion,  suspended  for  a  while,  had  never  been  aban- 
doned; the  ancient  customs  must  be  retained. 

The  Diet  set  itself  to  consider  his  demand;  committees  were  ap- 
pointed; investigations  were  made;  the  views  of  parties  were  ascer- 
tained. The  situation  had  not  improved;  it  had  rather  grown  worse. 
Differences  were  more  sharply  defined;  the  convictions  of  the  new  party 
had  deepened,  their  courage  had  strengthened,  their  plans  were  forming; 
the  difficulties  and  dangers  were  greater  than  ever.  It  became  evident 
that  if  the  Diet  should  do  anything,  it  would  not  be  what  the  Emperor 
wished  it  to  do.  Charles  had  anticipated  and  provided  for  such  a  con- 
tingency: if  the  Estates  would  not  do  what  he  wished  them  to  do,  he 
would  have  them  do  nothing.  On  August  3d  his  representatives  read  a 
letter  of  instructions  that  he  had  written  them  from  Seville,  March  23d, 
of  which  they  had  previously  said  nothing.  It  stated  that  "he  was 
going  to  Rome  to  be  crowned,  and  also  to  treat  with  the  Pope  about  a 
council.  In  the  meantime  it  was  his  will  that  the  Estates  should  not 
decree  anything  contrary  to  the  ancient  customs,  canons  and  ceremonies 
of  the  Church,  and  that  all  things  should  be  ordered  according  to  the 
form  and  tenor  of  the  edict  of  Worms."  He  was  not  unmindful  of  the 
complaints  of  the  people,  but  they  "should  patiently  bear  with  the 
delay,  until  he  had  treated  with  the  Pope  about  a  council,  which  should 
shortly  be  called."  It  did  no  good,  he  said,  to  treat  of  religious  matters 
in  a  Diet,  for  the  errors  and  licentiousness  of  the  common  people  were 
thereby  more  confirmed.1 

The  intended  effect  of  the  Emperor's  letter  was  to  stay  all  proceedings. 
The  Lutheran  party  was  dissatisfied;  they  were  still  to  be  in  danger  and 
suspense.  The  free  cities  of  upper  Germany  took  the  lead.  They  wished, 
they  said,  to  please  the  Emperor,  but  religious  controversies  increased 
daily;  it  had  been  dangerous  to  attempt  to  enforce  the  edict  of  Worms, 
and  the  danger  had  increased.  If  the  Emperor  were  present  and  under- 
stood the  condition  of  things  he  would  think  as  they  did.  Besides,  the 
relief  that  he  promised  was  illusive.  When  he  wrote  his  letter  he  and 
the  Pope  were  on  good  terms,  and  a  general  council  was  not  out  of  the 
question;  but  now  the  Pope  was  his  enemy,  making  war  upon  him,  and 
there  was  no  likelihood  that  a  council  would  be  called.  What  they  pro- 
posed was  to  inform  the  Emperor,  either  through  ambassadors  or  by 
letter,  of  the  true  state  of  Germany,  and  how  dangerous  it  was  to  post- 
pone attention  to  the  business  of  religion,  or  to  press  for  the  execution 
of  the  edict  of  Worms.  He  was  to  be  asked  to  permit  the  holding  of 
a  national  council  in  Germany,  as  the  Diet  of  Niirnberg  had  advised. 
But  if,  as  formerly,  he  did  not  approve  of  a  national  council,  he  might 
1  Walch,  16:  191-193. 


SPEYER  AND  THE  NEW  CHURCH  ORDER  265 

suspend  the  execution  of  the  edict  of  Worms  until  a  general  council 
should  meet.  They  also  suggested  that  "in  the  discord  and  dissension, 
so  long  as  every  man  was  forced  to  be  solicitous  about  his  own  private 
concerns,  it  would  be  very  difficult  and  uneasy  to  contribute  money  for 
the  aid  and  assistance  of  others." 

The  case  in  the  Diet  was  briefly  this:  The  Lutherans  thought  that 
there  was  no  prospect  of  a  general  council;  that  dangers  were  threaten- 
ing; and  that  burdens  were  to  be  removed;  consequently  that  no  tune 
was  to  be  lost.  On  the  other  hand,  the  papal  party  were  unwilling  to 
do  anything  in  opposition  to  the  Emperor's  expressed  wishes;  they 
would  wait  until  Emperor  and  Pope  were  at  one.  Feeling  ran  high; 
the  Elector  of  Saxony  threatened  to  withdraw;  the  Diet  seemed  about 
to  be  dissolved;  there  was  a  vivid  recollection  of  the  disturbances  of  the 
past  year,  and  even  greater  were  feared  unless  something  were  done. 
Ferdinand  and  the  Archbishop  of  Trier  interfered  and  a  compromise 
was  effected.  On  August  7th  the  Diet  decreed:  That  for  establish- 
ing religion  and  maintaining  peace  and  quietness,  it  was  necessary 
that  there  should  be  a  lawful  general  or  provincial  council  for  Ger- 
many, held  within  a  year.  And  that  no  delay  or  impediment  might 
intervene,  ambassadors  should  be  sent  to  the  Emperor  to  pray  him  to 
look  upon  the  miserable  and  tumultuous  state  of  the  Empire,  and  come 
into  Germany  as  soon  as  he  could,  and  procure  a  council.  After  much 
discussion  it  was  further  decreed,  on  August  27th,  that,  "while  awaiting 
the  sitting  of  the  Council  or  a  national  assembly,  with  our  subjects, 
on  the  matters  which  the  edict  published  by  his  Imperial  Majesty  at 
the  Diet  held  at  Worms  may  concern,  each  one  so  to  live,  govern  and 
carry  himself  as  he  hopes  and  trusts  to  answer  it  to  God  and  His  Imperial 
Majesty."  *  While  this  was,  in  form,  nothing  more  than  a  postpone- 
ment of  the  question,  it  was  in  fact  a  charter  of  mutual  toleration.  Each 
Estate  of  the  Empire  was  left  free  to  take  its  own  course  in  matters  per- 
taining to  religion.  The  decree  is  the  historic  origin  of  that  territorial 
system  that  henceforth  was  to  be  peculiar  to  Germany,  and  was  after- 
wards embodied  in  the  maxim,  Cujus  regio,  ejus  religio — the  religion 
of  the  government  determines  that  of  the  subject.  It  was  a  compromise 
dictated  by  the  nearly  balanced  state  of  the  Empire,  princes  and  people 
being  so  equally  divided  in  allegiance  to  the  old  and  the  new  in  religion 
that  neither  party  believed  an  overt  act  against  its  opponent  to  be 
expedient,  or  even  possible.  In  a  few  months  after  the  adoption  of 
the  decree,  the  Catholic  party  was  still  less  favorable  to  coercion.  The 
election  of  Archduke  Ferdinand  as  King  of  Bohemia,  in  October,  greatly 

1  Ein  jeglicher  .  .  .  fur  sich  also  zu  leben,  zu  regieren  und  zu  halten,  wie  ein 
jeder  solches  gegen  Gott  und  kaiserliche  Majest&t  hofft  und  vertraut  zu  verantworten. 
Kidd,  "Documents,"  185.  The  original  in  full  in  Walch,  16:  210. 


266  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

offended  Duke  Maximilian  of  Bavaria,  the  mainstay  of  the  Catholic 
party  in  the  South,  as  Duke  George  of  Saxony  was  in  the  North.  Jealous 
of  this  increase  of  the  power  and  influence  of  the  Habsburgs,  Maximilian 
sullenly  held  aloof  from  the  Emperor  and  by  his  attitude  made  inter- 
ference with  affairs  in  Germany  for  the  time  impossible. 

Even  before  the  Diet  thus  gave  a  free  hand  to  the  princes  and  cities, 
the  work  of  reformation  had  been  actively  begun  in  one  of  the  States 
of  the  Empire.  Prussia  had  been,  from  the  time  of  Frederick  II  and 
Innocent  III,  the  possesion  of  the  Teutonic  knights,  a  military-religious 
order  originating  during  the  crusades.  The  Grand  Master  of  the  order 
had  been  made  a  prince  of  the  Empire.  The  incompatibility  of  the 
military  and  the  monastic  life  had  long  been  evident,  and  the  degeneracy 
of  the  order  was  a  public  scandal.  Albert,  Margrave  of  Brandenburg, 
was  elected  Grand  Master  in  1510,  a  man  of  some  ability  and  of  greater 
ambition.  The  scion  of  a  house  that  in  its  numerous  agnations  had  over- 
spread a  large  part  of  northern  Germany,  his  plan  was  from  the  first 
to  make  Prussia  and  himself  more  independent.  In  1523  Luther  ad- 
dressed a  public  appeal  to  the  order  to  forsake  their  monastic  vows 
for  a  real  chastity  according  to  the  Gospel.1  His  pamphlet  was  the 
result  of  a  private  letter,  in  which  Albert  had  asked  advice  concerning 
the  reformation  of  the  order.  Albert  decided  to  accept  Luther's  counsel 
and  act  on  it;  he  proceeded  to  transform  the  order  into  a  hereditary 
Duchy,  and  assigned  the  members  lands  on  feudal  tenure.  Several 
preachers  of  known  evangelical  views  were  sent  by  Luther  to  Konigs- 
berg,  a  Lutheran  constitution  and  liturgy  were  approved  July  6,  1525, 
and  the  Reformation  was  formally  introduced  into  Prussia.  Duke 
Albert  now  assumed  entire  ecclesiastical  authority,  and  became  su- 
preme bishop.  While  the  Diet  was  in  session  at  Speyer  (July  1,  1526) 
he  married  a  Danish  princess,  and  the  work  of  transformation  was  vir- 
tually complete. 

This  example  had  a  great  effect  on  the  other  princes,  and  was  no 
doubt  a  determining  circumstance  in  the  deliberations  at  Speyer.  On 
the  one  hand  it  stimulated  the  Emperor's  desire  that  something  decisive 
should  be  done  against  these  innovations  in  religion.  He  had  promptly 
declared  the  ban  of  the  Empire  against  Albert,  but  that  was  a  wholly 
nugatory  act  unless  the  Diet  could  be  persuaded  to  take  the  matter 
up  and  provide  for  the  execution  of  the  ban.  Other  princes,  notably 
John  of  Saxony  and  Philip  of  Hesse,  had  not  gone  so  far  as  Duke  Albert, 
but  were  anxious  to  equal  or  surpass  his  achievement.  Prussia  had 
afforded  the  Empire  an  object-lesson  of  the  practical  advantages  to 

lErmahnung  an  die  Herren  deutsches  Ordens,  dass  sie  falsche  Keuschheit  meiden 
und  zuf  rechten  ehelichen  Keuschheit  greifen.  LDS,  39:  16  seq.  Walch,  19:  1730. 


SPEYER  AND  THE  NEW  CHURCH  ORDER  267 

be  gained  by  the  espousal  of  the  cause  of  religious  freedom — Albert 
had  shown  how  the  pretext  of  zeal  for  religion  could  be  made  the  mask 
under  which  there  might  be  wholesale  spoliation  of  the  Church  and  in- 
crease of  political  power.  Or,  if  we  suppose  that  the  zeal  was  genuine — 
which  is  stretching  credulity  to  the  breaking  point,  under  all  the  cir- 
cumstances— Albert  had  demonstrated  that  godliness  was  exceedingly 
profitable,  having  the  certainty  of  the  life  that  now  is  and  the  promise 
of  the  life  to  come. 

The  Reformation  had  raised  certain  practical  questions  that  had  for 
some  time  been  pressing  for  answer,  and  that  could  not  be  longer  post- 
poned. How  should  the  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction,  formerly  exercised 
by  the  Pope  through  the  episcopate,  be  exercised  in  the  new  order 
was  perhaps  the  most  important  of  these,  and  certainly  the  most  press- 
ing. Duke  Albert  had  the  cooperation  of  some  of  his  bishops  hi  the 
reform  of  the  Church  in  Prussia,  but  in  this  he  was  a  solitary  exception.. 
In  every  other  state  the  bishops,  scarcely  one  excepted,  remained  faithful 
to  the  Catholic  Church.  It  seemed  a  necessity  of  the  case  that  the 
princes  should  take  the  initiative,  assume  episcopal  jurisdiction  and 
establish  the  new  order.  Luther  had  from  the  first  urged  them  to  do 
this,  and  he  urged  it  now.  But  he  had  taught  other  things  about  the 
Gospel  order  impossible  to  reconcile  with  such  action.  A  doer  rather 
than  a  thinker,  he  had  not  been  conscious  of  the  contradictions  in  his- 
teaching,  but  when  the  time  came  for  him  to  choose  his  line  and  adhere 
to  it,  he  did  not  hesitate.  In  judging  his  course,  we  must  not  forget 
to  allow  for  his  peasant  extraction;  to  ignore  it  is  not  only  to  be  unfair 
to  Luther,  but  to  misunderstand  much  in  the  history  of  sixteenth-century 
Germany.  The  ingrained  deference  to  rank  and  respect  for  superior 
authority  found  in  the  German  peasantry  as  a  whole  is  a  leading  trait 
in  Luther's  character.  What  was  an  inherited  habit  of  thought  he 
elevated,  as  we  have  already  seen,  to  the  plane  of  a  religious  duty;  and 
the  institutional  forms  of  Lutheranism,  as  we  shall  trace  their  develop- 
ment, should  be  viewed  as  the  inevitable  consequence  of  Luther's  peasant 
birth  and  breeding.  There  was  a  tune  when  his  monastic  training 
threatened  to  overcome,  and  did  for  a  time  greatly  modify,  this  earlier 
and  deeper-rooted  tendency  of  his  nature.  But  when  he  engaged  in  his 
work  as  a  reformer  and  threw  off  his  monastic  vows,  the  older  feeling 
reasserted  itself  with  undiminished  power. 

Luther  was  too  practical  and  sensible  a  man  to  concern  himself  much 
about  formal  consistency,  much  too  sensible  and  practical  to  contend 
for  abstract  principles  when  the  success  of  his  movement  was  at  stake. 
There  is  a  time  to  discuss  principle  and  there  is  a  time  to  act,  and  the 
time  had  now  come  in  Germany  to  act.  Without  organization  the  party 


•26S  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

of  reform  would  lose  all  that  had  been  gained.  They  had  been  engaged 
hitherto  in  the  work  of  destruction,  and  that  had  been  well  done;  it  was 
now  time  to  build  up.  Turning  his  back  resolutely  and  finally  on  his 
earlier  teaching  about  the  priesthood  of  all  believers,  the  absolute  liberty 
of  every  man's  conscience,  the  right  of  congregations  to  elect  then* 
own  ministers,  and  the  like,  Luther  turned  to  the  princes  as  the  only 
authority  that  could  bring  order  out  of  inextricable  confusion.  It 
is  easy  to  condemn  this  inconsistency;  it  is  hard,  not  to  say  impossible, 
now  as  it  was  then,  to  suggest  an  alternative  course  that  held  out  the 
least  promise  of  success. 

In  the  positive  part  of  their  work  the  reformers  began  with  changes 
in  worship.  It  has  been  a  question  whether  doctrines  or  forms  of  wor- 
ship are  more  sensitive  to  changing  influences — a  question  that  does  not 
admit  of  a  final  answer.  A  change  in  doctrine  would  in  time  be  followed 
by  a  change  in  ceremonial;  and  in  like  manner  a  change  in  ceremonial 
by  one  in  doctrine.  In  point  of  fact,  however,  corruptions  of  doctrine 
usually  first  manifest  themselves  in  changes  of  worship,  and  the  first 
notable  reformations  of  doctrine  take  form  in  alterations  of  ceremonial. 
This  is  equivalent  to  saying  that  when  men  are  roused  to  a  consciousness 
of  abuses,  they  correct  first  those  that  first  attract  their  attention.  Hence 
the  order  of  reformation  is,  first  in  rites  and  ceremonies,  which  appeal 
to  the  senses;  second,  in  matters  of  church  organization  and  discipline; 
and  thud,  in  creed  or  definitions  of  doctrine.  This  was  the  order  in 
the  reformed  English  Church;  it  was  also  the  order  among  the  Lutherans. 

In  the  case  of  the  Lutherans,  the  effect  of  the  newly  emphasized 
doctrine  of  justification  by  faith  was  very  important.  It  discredited 
the  mass  and  reestablished  the  Lord's  Supper  with  both  the  bread  and 
the  wine  for  all  communicants.  Images  disappeared  from  the  churches; 
monkish  vows  lost  their  binding  force  and  monasteries  were  emptied 
and  closed;  asceticism  in  all  its  forms  came  into  suspicion;  fasts  were 
condemned  or  neglected;  the  clergy  married.  We  have  seen  how  these 
changes  were  begun  by  the  fanatics  at  Wittenberg,  and  how  cautiously 
Luther  authorized  or  disowned  them.  The  destruction  of  old  forms 
made  it  necessary  that  others  should  be  provided  to  take  their  place. 
Not  yet  ready  for  the  entire  abolition  of  the  mass,  Luther  must  prepare 
a  new  mass  book.1  As  the  absolution  of  the  priest  was  no  longer  deemed 
necessary,  auricular  confession  was  no  longer  required.*  As  the  Scriptures 
had  come  to  be  the  sole  authority  in  matters  of  faith,  they  must  be  read 

**§n^mi*m*~mmb*~i»&io*&Wm**9*mfl**.Un.  Sehling, 
DiB  «MB*eiuc*en  Kirckenordnungen  des  xti  Jahrkunderto.  Leipzig,  1902,  1:  1-9. 
Four  volumes  of  this  monumental  work  have  thus  far  appeared. 

*  Luther  indeed  restored  auricular  confession  and  private  absolution,  after  they 
Trere  set  aside  by  Caristadt.  but  he  says  this  private  confession  should  not  be 
perverted  or  forced  on  anyone.  This  in  1522.  Gieseler,  4:  540,  n.  1. 


SPEYER  AND  THE  NEW  CHURCH  ORDER     2  ;9 

and  expounded  to  the  people,  and  the  sermon  had  the  place  of  honor. 
For  the  same  reason,  namely,  that  instruction  is  a  principal  thing,  the 
vernacular  took  the  place  of  Latin  in  the  liturgy,  and  Latin  hymns 
began  to  give  place  to  hymns  hi  German.  There  was  no  more  invocation 
of  the  saints,  or  of  the  Virgin  Mary;  the  church  festivals  lost  most  of 
their  significance;  relics  were  no  longer  sacred;  shrines  were  shrines  no 
longer,  and  pilgrims  and  pilgrimages  passed  away.1 

With  the  change  from  old  rites  to  new,  there  was  a  change  in  the 
spirit  of  the  worshipers:  the  old  jense  of  reverence  was  weakened, 
where  it  was  not  destroyed;  men  became  hard,  disputatious,  arrogant, 
rejoicing  in  their  freedom,  impatient  of  authority.  It  was  not  their 
doctrine,  but  their  position  of  antagonism  that  made  them  so.  Gentleness 
and  deference  to  the  views  of  others  are  not  the  virtues  of  reformers. 
The  fact  that  they  are  reformers,  especially  that  they  seek  to  correct 
great  and  long-standing  abuses  in  sacred  things,  implies  that  they  repress 
or  have  lost  or  never  had  the  gentler  virtues.  There  has  been  only 
one  great  Reformer,  who,  with  charity  toward  the  erring,  could  teach 
with  gentleness  and  wait  with  patience  the  effect  of  his  teaching.2  It 
is  one  of  the  hateful  things  about  error  and  corruption  that  the  cor- 
rection of  them  itself  misleads  and  corrupts. 

The  difference  between  the  new  and  the  old  churches  was  great  and 
obtrusive.  It  forced  itself  upon  the  notice  of  the  people.  No  one  could 
enter  a  Lutheran  church  without  knowing  it  to  be  Lutheran.  What 
was  not  seen  and  heard,  no  less  than  what  was  seen  and  heard,  told  the 
tale.  The  changes  had  been  rapid.3  In  a  little  more  than  five  years — 
that  is,  from  Thesis  day  to  the  beginning  of  1523 — many  of  them  had 
already  been  made.  Luther  felt  that  things  were  moving  too  fast; 
he  would  change  as  few  things  as  possible.  His  maxim  was  "What- 
ever is  not  against  Scripture  is  for  Scripture,  and  Scripture  for  it."  4 
This  was  the  principle  by  which  he  was  guided  in  his  whole  work.  It 

1  In  the  weekday  morning  service  Latin  hymns  were  song  by  the  scholars, 
the  New  Testament  was  read  in  Latin  and  German.  German  hymns  were  also  sung. 
There  was  a  sermon  every  day;  on  Sunday  three  sermons,  one  on  the  Epistles. 
one  on  the  Gospels,  and  the  third  in  the  evening  on  the  Old  Testament.  The 
Lord's  Supper  was  celebrated  every  Sunday.  "The  elevation  we  do  not  abolish 
but  retain."  This  was  in  the  service  of  1526.  In  1543  Luther  says,  "We  have 
done  away  with  the  elevation  in  our  churches,  and  I  willingly  allow  it  for  this 
reason  alone,  that  such  services  must  not  be  our  masters,  as  if  it  were  sin  to  do 
otherwise."  Gieseler,  4:  544;  cf.  540,  541. 

1  And  even  he  could  say,  "I  came  to  cast  fire  upon  the  earth,  and  what  do  I 
desire  if  it  is  already  kindled?"  Luke  12:  49. 

*  "In  the  parish  church  there  was  only  one  mass  in  the  week;  besides  this  on 
Sundays  and  festivals.    The  deacons  gave  the  sacrament  of  the  Supper  in  full  to 
whoever  came,  whether  he  had  confessed  or  not.    Nobody  but  Luther  preached." 
Sebastian  Froschel,  describing  things  at  Wittenberg  when  he  first  went  there  in 
1522.     Gieseler,  4:  541. 

*  Quid  ergo  non  est  scripturam  pro  scripture,  est,  et  scriptura  pro  eo.     Letter  to 
Melanchthon  Jan.  13,  1522.     He  was  defending  infant  baptism. 


270  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

is  often  called  the  conservative  principle  of  the  Lutheran  Reformation, 
as  the  supremacy  of  Scripture  is  called  the  formal-  principle,  and  jus- 
tification by  faith  the  material  principle.  In  accordance  with  this  con- 
servative principle,  Luther  felt  no  call  to  condemn  many  things  to  which 
the  people  had  become  accustomed  and  regarded  as  sacred.  He  would 
not  unnecessarily  scandalize  the  weak  or  be  himself  bound.  "We  must 
go  to  work,"  he  said,  "with  fear  and  courage  before  God,  be  moderate, 
wait  until  some  things  take  root,  and  then  additions  will  come  as  a 
matter  of  course  when  needed."  *  As  he  would  not  be  unnecessarily 
bound  himself,  neither  would  he  unnecessarily  bind  others.  In  1526 
he  published  his  German  mass  and  service  book.  He  says  in  the  pref- 
ace, "Before  all  else,  I  would  cordially  ask,  and  for  the  sake  of  the 
Lord,  that  all  who  see  or  would  follow  this  order  of  ours  in  the  worship 
of  God  would  not  impose  it  as  a  law,  or  bind  anybody's  conscience 
thereto,  but  use  their  Christian  freedom  at  pleasure,  as,  where,  and  as 
long  as,  matters  make  it  seemly."  In  this  earnest  protestation  he  had 
in  mind  the  fact  that  forms  grow  into  custom,  and  custom  into  law; 
and  that  things  that  men  at  first  do  because  they  are  seemly  or  ex- 
pedient are  presently  changed  into  what  it  is  sinful  not  to  do. 

He  retained  much  of  the  paraphernalia  of  worship.2  This  was  partly 
owing  to  his  indifference  in  such  matters,  and  partly  to  a  hesitation 
to  give  up  that  to  which  he  and  the  people  were  accustomed — he  loved 
a  sort  of  stateliness  in  worship.  But  at  the  same  time  he  was  not  slow 
to  correct  what  he  thought  were  positive  evils.  It  grieved  him  that  "God's 
word  had  been  put  to  silence  and  only  read  or  sung."  To  remedy  this, 
he  would  have  the  congregation  never  come  together  without  preaching. 
So  it  was,  he  said,  in  the  times  of  the  apostles.  The  Old  Testament 
should  be  read  through,  chapter  by  chapter,  half  an  hour  a  day,  in  the 
morning.  In  the  evening  the  New  Testament  should  be  read.  On 
Sunday  all  the  people  were  to  come  together  for  reading,  singing  and 
listening  to  preaching.  The  services  should  be  short,  so  as  not  to  weary 
the  people — an  hour  is  the  time  mentioned.  This  was  in  1523;  three 
years  later  the  services  were  more  definitely  prescribed.  There  was  a 
decided  tendency  to  increase  the  number  of  services.  There  were  many 
more  in  1523  than  in  1522,  and  more  in  1526  than  in  1523. 

The  teaching  function  of  the  Church  was  greatly  emphasized.    There 

1  To  Philip  of  Hesse,  Jan.,  1527,  Gieseler,  4:  521.    In  reply  to  Henry  VIII  he 
said,  "Free,  free,  free,  we  will  and  ought  to  be  in  all  things  outside  the  Scripture." 
In  1544  he  defined  the  limits  of  freedom — in  reference  to  all  things  neither  com- 
manded nor  forbidden,  weder  geboten  noch  verboten.    Gieseler,  4:  394. 

2  As  to  the  principal  service,  the  mass  in  German:  "We  let  the  paraphernalia, 
altar,  lights  stay  till  we  see  reason  to  change  them;  whoever  will  do  differently, 
let  him.     But  in  the  true  mass,  with  real  Christians,  the  altar  should  not  stay 
thus  and  the  priest  should  turn  his  face  to  the  congregation,  as  doubtless  Christ 
did  in  the  Supper.     That  waits  its  time."     Gieseler,  4:  543. 


SPEYER  AND  THE  NEW  CHURCH  ORDER  271 

is  always  a  latent  power  in  men  that  may  be  called  out  on  occasion, 
and  preachers,  like  other  men,  are  influenced  by  the  spirit  of  their  time. 
If  little  is  required  of  them,  they  will  do  little — in  a  dull  and  sluggish  period 
they  will  be  sluggish  and  dull.  So  it  will  be  until  some  man  rises,  prophet- 
like,  to  rouse  the  conscience  and  kindle  the  enthusiasm  of  men.  Such 
a  prophet  Luther  was,  and,  catching  inspiration  from  him,  his  preachers 
magnified  their  office.  Possessed  by  a  present  and  definite  purpose, 
they  spoke  with  clearness,  directness  and  power.  Multitudes  gathered 
to  hear  them,  eager,  sympathetic,  confident;  or,  not  convinced  but 
wishing  to  learn;  or,  it  may  be,  angry,  with  lips  compressed,  faces  pale 
and  eyes  flashing;  but  all  attentive.  It  was  the  time  of  the  preacher's 
opportunity.  And  before  the  sermon  began  and  after  it  ended,  the  new 
German  hymns  thrilled  the  hearts  of  singers  and  hearers  alike — songs 
of  patience,  of  faith,  of  hope,  of  courage.  Those  who  have  seen  men 
and  women  gather  in  some  of  our  great  modern  religious  assemblies, 
where  earnest  speeches  have  been  made,  stirring  sermons  preached,  and 
hymns  sung  by  many  thousands  led  by  a  chorus  of  trained  voices,  when 
feeling  has  risen  too  high  for  shouting  and  clamor,  can  realize  what  these 
meetings  were  in  the  early  days  of  the  Lutheran  movement.  Men  were 
stirred  by  religious  enthusiasm  as  men  had  not  been  stirred  in  Europe 
since  the  days  of  the  crusades. 

But  this  earnestness  and  excitement  was  not  altogether  for  righteous- 
ness. When  from  any  cause  men  are  freed  from  the  restraints  to  which 
they  have  been  accustomed,  they  are  likely  to  be  more  or  less  errant  until 
they  adjust  themselves  to  the  new  situation.  Periods  of  transition  are 
always  periods  of  danger.  It  was  according  to  all  experience  that  the 
Lutherans  should  be  tried  in  passing  from  the  old  system  to  the  new, 
and  that  many  should  be  found  wanting.  Some  of  them  were  drunken 
with  their  new  freedom;  few  were  entirely  sober.  They  were  like  a 
horse  turned  loose  without  a  bridle.  So  long  as  they  believed  that  for- 
giveness of  sin  depended  on  the  absolution  of  the  priest,  they  stood  in 
awe  of  him :  he  could  in  some  measure  control  them.  But  when  they  came 
to  believe  that  the  sacrament  of  penance  was  itself  an  imposition,  and 
that  confession  and  absolution  were  not  necessary  to  salvation,  his 
power  was  broken.  The  temptation  was  to  despise  him,  in  proportion 
as  they  had  honored  him  too  much.  His  authority  was  at  an  end,  and 
there  was  nothing  to  take  its  place.  This  was  one  difficulty,  but  there 
was  another  not  less  serious:  it  was  a  misconception  of  the  doctrine 
of  justification  by  faith.  The  people  were  taught  that  works  were  not 
meritorious,1  that  they  did  not  please  God,  that  they  contributed  nothing 

1  Luther  nominally  limited  his  hostility  to  good  works,  to  the  doctrine  taught 
concerning  them  by  the  Roman  Church,  namely,  that  they  are  a  means  of  salva- 
tion. But  there  was  a  reason  for  the  Protestants'  opposition  to  good  works  of 


272  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

to  salvation,  and  that  it  was  dangerous  to  trust  in  them.  But,  if  that 
was  true,  why  should  one  trouble  himself  to  do  good  works?  There 
was  no  logical  place  for  them  in  the  new  teaching.  It  was,  indeed,  said 
that  good  works  were  the  necessary,  spontaneous  outcome  of  faith, 
and  that  there  could  be  no  faith  without  them;  but  this  did  not  carry 
with  it  any  deep  sense  of  obligation  to  do  them.  Breathing  is  natural 
and  spontaneous;  life  is  impossible  without  it;  but  we  are  not  under 
obligation  to  breathe,  in  the  sense  in  which  we  are  under  obligation 
to  fear  God  and  keep  his  commandments.  Luther's — or  rather  Paul's — 
doctrine  of  justification  is  a  great  and  true  Christian  doctrine,  but  as 
understood  by  the  Lutheran  teachers,  as  well  as  by  the  people,  its  effect 
was  to  weaken  men's  sense  of  moral  responsibility.  Without  any  restrain- 
ing external  force,  and  misunderstanding  their  relations  to  God,  the  people 
were  drifting,  no  one  knew  whither.  Luther's  work  had  been  destructive; 
the  time  had  come  for  law  and  organization.  The  disciplinary  machinery 
of  the  Roman  Church  had  been  removed;  other  must  be  created  to 
take  its  place. 

Luther's  followers  were  a  multitude;  he  must  change  them  into  a 
Church.  But  how  would  he  proceed?  After  what  pattern  would  he 
build?  He  did,  not  what  he  would,  but  what  he  could.  In  his  first 
conception,  following  what  he  supposed  to  be  the  teaching  of  the  New 
Testament,  a  single  congregation  of  Christians  is  a  church,  having  all 
the  rights,  powers  and  functions  that  belong  to  the  church  in  any  sense. 
It  was  the  judge  of  doctrine,  could  call  and  ordain  teachers,  and  had 
the  power  of  excommunication  and  of  discipline  generally.  It  was 
under  no  Pope  or  bishop,  neither  was  it  subject  to  the  will  or  influence 
of  any  other  congregation:  it  was  independent.1  Luther  insisted  that 
all  Christians  are  equally  priests,  and  have  the  same  power  in  word 
and  sacrament.  This  he  did  early  and  late:  in  the  Babylonian  Cap- 

which  they  were  not  fully  conscious.  This  doctrine  of  the  Church  was  selected 
for  special  attack  because  it  was  the  doctrine  that  gave  the  Church  its  hold  on  the 
purse  of  the  laity.  Luther's  early  popularity  as  the  opposer  of  indulgences  was 
due  to  the  national  feeling  that  the  sale  of  indulgences  took  too  much  money 
out  of  Germany  and  gave  it  to  a  Roman  prince.  Justification  by  faith  was  upheld 
in  Germany,  not  merely  because  it  seemed  truer  to  Scripture,  but  because  it  de- 
livered Germans  from  paying  tribute  to  Rome. 

1  In  his  treatise  on  the  power  of  the  Pope  Luther  says:  "Wherever  the  word  of 
God  is  preached  and  believed,  there  is  true  faith;  and  where  true  faith  is,  there 
is  the  church.  Faith  has  within  itself  whatever  belongs  to  faith,  the  keys,  the 
sacraments,  the  power  and  all  other  things."  Gieseler,  4:  518.  The  passage 
was  written  in  1519,  after  the  Leipzig  disputation.  In  1523  Luther  said,  Versamm- 
lung  oder  Gemeinde  Recht  und  Macht  hat,  alle  Lehre  zu  urtheilen,  und  Lehrer  zu 
berufen  ein — und  abzusetzen.  Melanchthon  de  Bonifacio,  in  1537:  Cognitio  de  doc- 
trina  pertinet  non  solum  ad  Magistratum,  sed  ad  Ecclesiam,  hac  est,  non  tantum  ad 
Presbuteros  sed  etiam  ad  laicos  idoneos  ad  judicandum.  See  Gieseler,  4:  519. 
He  gives  full  references  to  authorities;  cf.  Kostlin,  "Theology,"  1:  364.  But  in 
the  Schmalkald  Articles  (1529)  Luther  abandons  this  idea  of  a  spiritual  church  for  a 
more  formal  and  practicable  definition:  "Such  church  is  nothing  else  than  the 
believers  in  Christ  who  believe  the  above  stated  articles."  Art.  xii. 


SPEYER  AND  THE  NEW  CHURCH  ORDER  273 

tivity  in  1520,  and  in  his  Exposition  of  the  Psalms,  in  1539.  It 
was  an  essential  part  of  his  general  teaching  that  every  Christian  has 
the  right  to  judge  for  himself  in  religious  matters,  and  may  for  himself 
approach  God  through  Christ,  his  High  Priest.  He  would  have  no 
special,  privileged,  exclusive  class  in  the  Church.  For  the  sake  of  order 
he  required  that  there  should  be  ordained  priests  to  represent  the  church 
and  be  responsible  to  it.  In  the  nature  of  the  case,  these  specially  chosen 
acted  with  an  authority  that  did  not  belong  to  all,  but  the  special  priest- 
hood of  some  did  not  invalidate  the  Yeal  priesthood  of  all.1  In  a  word, 
Luther's  early  conception  of  the  church  was  very  nearly  that  of  the 
congregational  bodies  of  our  time. 

In  the  first  attempt  to  organize  the  Lutherans  into  churches  dis- 
tinctly separate  from  the  Romanists,  the  congregational  order  was 
adopted.  The  attempt  was  made  in  Hesse,  under  the  lead  of  Land- 
grave Philip,  at  a  synod  at  Homberg,  in  October,  1526.  The  theologian 
who  had  the  principal  part  in  the  synod  was  Francis  Lambert,  a  converted 
Franciscan  monk,  who  prepared  at  the  Landgrave's  request  a  scheme  of 
church  government.2  His  plan  was  adopted  in  the  synod,  but  not  in 
practice,  and  it  need  only  be  mentioned  to  show  how  the  Reformation 
leaders,  in  their  first  thoughts  turned  to  Congregationalism.  It  was 
Luther  who  advised  the  Landgrave  against  the  proposed  scheme;  it 
was  impracticable;  there  was  not  material  for  the  organization  of  in- 
dependent congregational  churches.  "Rules  of  order,"  he  said,  "could 
soon  be  made,  if  we  had  the  right  sort  of  persons."  But  they  did  not 
have  them;  the  people  had  had  no  experience  of  a  congregational  church — 
they  had  all  their  lives  been  ruled  by  bishops  and  priests — and  besides 
their  inexperience,  they  were  "a  wild,  rude,  noisy  people,"  difficult  to 
manage.  Their  leaders  were  almost  as  helpless  as  they.  They  saw, 
or  thought  they  saw,  what  was  best,  but  they  also  saw  that  that  best 
was  unattainable,  at  least  in  any  way  that  seemed  possible  to  them.  It 
was  with  the  reformers  in  the  Church,  as  it  had  sometimes  been  with 
reformers  in  the  State:  earnest-souled  men,  longing  for  liberty  and 
for  civil  justice,  looked  back  to  the  days  of  the  Senate  and  the  Consuls 
at  Rome.  Those  were  times  of  patriotism,  of  plain  living,  of  unselfishness, 
of  freedom,  of  everything  to  please  the  lover  of  virtue  and  country. 
Seen  through  the  mist  of  years,  the  old  Roman  state  was  transfigured, 

!"  Every  Christian  has  and  exercises  the  priestly  work;  above  this  is  the  common 
office  of  teacher,  .  .  .  for  in  a  church  all  have  not  office,  nor  can  the  sacraments 
be  fitly  celebrated  in  every  house;  hence  there  must  be  special  persons  for  this; 
but  this  is  not  to  make  an  order  of  priesthood."  Gieseler,  4:  519. 

2  It  has  been  questioned  whether  he  was  indebted  for  his  plan  to  his  own  order, 
the  Franciscans,  or  to  Zwingli,  or  to  Luther.  It  is  likely  that,  like  Luther  and 
Zwingli  themselves,  he  was  following  the  suggestions  of  his  own  independent 
study  of  the  New  Testament. 


274  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

glorified.  Why  not  bring  back  the  Consuls  and  the  Senate  and  have  again 
the  Republic,  as  it  was  in  its  greatness?  The  difficulty  was  that  the 
world  had  changed  since  the  days  of  Cincinnatus,  and  Rome  could  never 
again  be  what  Rome  was.  Rienzi  and  Arnold  of  Brescia  were  imprac- 
tical dreamers.  In  the  same  way,  Luther  and  those  with  him  sought 
a  purified  Church;  they  looked  back  to  the  days  of  the  apostles,  when 
every  church  was  a  Christian  republic,  and  all  the  churches  were  a 
confederated  brotherhood,  bound  together  by  no  written  treaty,  but 
by  a  common  faith  and  devotion  to  a  common  Lord.  In  this  case,  too, 
there  was  something  wanting:  the  churches,  like  the  Empire,  had  de- 
veloped; customs  and  methods  unknown  to  the  apostles  had  created 
conditions  in  which  the  church  of  the  apostles  could  not  live.  The  only 
way  to  reproduce  the  church  of  the  apostles  was  to  begin  where  the 
apostles  began,  at  the  beginning,  and  do  as  the  apostles  did,  gather 
slowly  and  by  units  the  saved  into  congregations.  To  organize  this 
great  rabble  of  Lutheran  Christians  into  apostolic  churches  was  a  thing 
impossible. 

But  there  must  be  some  organization.  The  churches  were  without 
government,  and  the  people  were  drifting  into  confusion.  They  had 
been  accustomed  to  compulsion,  and  there  must  be  some  one  over  them 
to  restrain  them  and  compel  them  to  duty.  In  the  old  order  the  bishops 
had  performed  this  service,  and  the  Lutherans  would  have  been  glad 
to  have  the  help  of  the  bishops,  but  there  were  no  bishops  among  them. 
They  might  look  to  the  civil  rulers,  but  there  was  a  difficulty  in  the  way : 
they  had  learned  that  the  State  and  the  Church  are  two  different  things 
and  that  "the  two  regiments,  spiritual  and  secular,  are  not  to  be  con- 
founded." The  one  is  for  piety  and  the  other  for  external  peace.  "The 
secular  laws,"  said  Luther  in  1523,  "are  for  the  body  and  goods;  and 
the  soul  God  will  let  no  one  rule  but  himself;  and  when  the  secular  power 
gives  law  to  the  soul,  it  trespasses  on  God's  rule  and  destroys  the  soul." 
As  the  State  must  not  interfere  with  the  Church,  so  the  Church  must 
not  interfere  with  the  State:  the  two  are  separate  and  distinct.1  But 
it  was  the  ideal  Church  that  was  distinct  from  the  State:  the  Church 
as  Luther  knew  it  had  always  been  joined  to  the  State  and  did  not 
know  how  to  live  apart  from  it.  Hence,  willing  or  unwilling,  it  must 
look  to  the  State  for  help. 

The  first  service  that  the  Lutherans  required  of  the  State  was  to 
appoint  some  one  to  take  the  place  of  the  bishops.  There  was  a  conscious 
feeling  that  this  was  incompatible  with  the  doctrine  of  the  separation 
of  the  Church  and  State,  and  that  some  apology  or  explanation  was 
necessary.  Accordingly,  it  was  said,  Though  his  royal  grace  was  not 

i  Augsburg  Confession,  art  xxvii.     Gieseler  4:  521. 


SPEYER  AND  THE  NEW  CHURCH  ORDER  275 

appointed  to  teach  and  administer  in  spiritual  things,  yet  it  was  his 
duty  to  prevent  divisions  and  disasters  among  his  subjects,  as  the  Em- 
peror Constantine  had  to  aid  the  bishops  at  Nicsea.  As  time  went  on, 
it  became  clearer  to  those  who  needed  the  help  of  the  magistrate  that 
such  help  might  be  lawfully  asked  and  given.  In  1525  Luther  taught 
that  the  princes  ought  to  restrain  manifest  blasphemies  against  the  name 
of  God.  He  quoted  in  proof  the  example  of  Christ  driving  the  money- 
changers out  of  the  Temple  with  a  whip  of  cords.  In  1537  it  was  thought 
that  princes  ought  to  care  for  the  church  because  they  were  chief  members 
of  it.  In  1540  Melanchthon  taught  that  princes  and  senators  had  the 
right  of  calling  bishops,  first  because  they  rule,  and  second  because  they 
are  the  chief  members  of  the  church.  The  princes  might  also  compel  to 
religious  duties.  Luther  thought  it  proper  for  the  Elector  to  enjoin, 
with  penalties,  the  use  of  the  Catechism,  for  "if  the  people  will  be  Chris- 
tians they  ought  to  be  obliged  to  learn  what  a  Christian  ought  to  know." 
So  the  reformers  found  reasons  for  doing  what  they  thought  to  be 
necessary;  and  so  their  conception  of  the  Church  was  inoperative,  be- 
cause custom  and  expediency  were  against  it.  We  might  blame  them, 
if  we  choose,  for  their  inconsistency;  it  would  be  better  to  remember 
that  they  inherited  and  were  bound  by  the  developments  of  the  past, 
from  which  they  saw  no  way  to  be  loosed.  There  was  no  solution  of  their 
problem  but  a  far  more  radical  reform  than  they  were  ready  to  under- 
take— a  reform  too  radical  to  have  any  reasonable  prospect  of  success. 
The  rulers  discharged  the  duties  to  which  the  Lutherans  called  them 
by  appointing  superintendents  to  take  the  place  of  the  bishops.  These 
were  to  watch  over  the  lives  and  doctrines  of  pastors,  and  together 
with  them,  to  constitute  a  council  of  the  highest  ecclesiastical  authority. 
But  as  in  former  times  many  things,  especially  such  as  pertained  to 
marriages  and  wills,  belonged  to  the  now  defunct  bishops'  courts,  there 
was  needed  some  tribunal  to  which  they  could  still  be  referred.  Consis- 
tories were  established  for  this  purpose — a  sort  of  hybrid,  half  secular, 
half  ecclesiastical.  They  had  the  right  of  excommunication,  which 
carried  with  it  exclusion  from  all  church  privileges  (the  sermon  excepted), 
civil  punishment,  suspension  from  office,  and  prohibition  of  labor.  The 
consistories  were  not  the  same  in  all  the  States,  and  not  until  after  the 
establishment  of  the  religious  peace  of  1555  did  they  become  permanent. 
There  were  always  some  Luthers  among  them,  who  wished  discipline 
to  belong  to  the  Church  alone.  In  the  end,  scarcely  anything  that  the 
reformers  thought  ought  to  be  in  the  church  was  in  it.  The  churches 
were  not  independent,  self-governing  bodies,  they  could  not  choose  their 
own  pastors,  or  exclude  unworthy  members.  In  place  of  the  old  order 
was  the  State:  princes,  councils,  consistories.  The  work  was  hardly  so 


276  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

well  done,  and  the  tyranny  was  hardly  less.  Many  of  the  more  serious 
would  have  been  glad  to  have  the  bishops  back,  if  they  could  have  come 
jure  humano  and  not  jure  divino.  Things  did  not  go  so  well,  especially 
after  the  first  generous  enthusiasm  for  right  and  truth  had  spent  it- 
self. Formerly  the  priests  had  mastered  the  people:  the  clergy  now 
had  two  masters,  the  people  and  the  government.  "It  has  come  to 
this,"  said  Luther  in  1541,  "that  we  see  young  masters,  even  cities, 
even  small  muddy  towns  and  villages,  that  would  prevent  their  pastors 
and  preachers  from  inveighing  in  the  pulpit  against  sin  or  crime,  or  else 
chase  them  away  and  starve  them;  and  he  that  takes  anything  away 
from  them  is  holy."  The  people  had  been  taught  to  rebel  against  priests 
and  they  did  not  discriminate  between  the  class  as  a  whole  and  some  of 
the  class — they  asserted  their  independence  of  all. 

It  was  a  plan  devised  by  Luther  and  adopted  by  the  Elector  of  Saxony 
that  made  possible  the  introduction  of  order  into  the  churches  of  that 
principality.  This  plan  was  suggested  in  a  letter  that  throws  so  much 
light  on  the  whole  situation,  that  it  should  be  read  with  little  abbre- 
viation: 

It  is  a  long  time  since  I  have  made  any  requests  of  your  Grace; 
hence  they  have  accumulated.  May  your  Grace  therefore  have 
patience,  for  it  cannot  be  otherwise. 

First  of  all,  gracious  Lord,  I  must  make  known  that  immoderate 
complaints  are  made  by  the  clergy  in  nearly  every  place.  The 
peasants  positively  will  not  give  any  more,  and  among  the  people 
there  prevails  such  unthankfulness  for  God's  holy  word  that  un- 
doubtedly a  great  punishment  from  God  is  at  hand.  If  I  knew  how 
to  do  it  with  a  good  conscience,  I  certainly  would  bring  it  about 
that  they  should  have  no  minister  or  preacher,  and  let  them 
live  like  swine,  as  indeed  they  do.  There  is  no  fear  of  God,  no 
more  discipline,  since  the  papal  ban  has  gone,  and  every  one  does 
only  what  he  wills.  Now,  since  it  is  commanded  us  all,  but  espe- 
cially the  government,  to  care  first  of  all  for  the  poor  youth  that  are 
born  daily  and  are  growing  up,  and  to  keep  them  in  the  fear  of  God 
and  in  good  breeding,  they  must  have  schools,  preachers  and  pastors. 
If  the  parents  do  not  wish  this,  they  may  always  go  to  the  devil. 
But  where  the  youth  remain  neglected  and  untrained,  it  is  the  fault 
of  the  government.  The  land  becomes  full  of  a  wild  and  vicious 
people;  so  that  not  only  the  command  of  God,  but  our  own  safety 
constrains  us  to  find  a  remedy. 

As,  however,  in  your  Grace's  principality,  papal  and  clerical 
restraint  and  order  has  ceased,  and  as  all  cloisters  and  endowments 
have  fallen  into  the  hands  of  your  Grace,1  as  the  supreme  head,  there 
comes  along  with  them  the  duty  and  burden  of  setting  things  in 
order.  For  no  one  else  assumes  it  nor  can  assume  it.  Therefore,  as 

xBoth  Luther  and  Melanchthon  complained  frequently  and  bitterly  of  the 
mismanagement  of  the  church  property  confiscated  by  the  princes.  De  Wette, 
2:  569,  592;  3:  136,  142.  As  to  Melanchthon,  see  CR,  4:  695,  882;  5:  770. 


SPEYER  AND  THE  NEW  CHURCH  ORDER  277 

I  have  fully  reported  to  your  chancellor,  and  to  Nicholas  von  Ende, 
it  is  necessary  that  your  Grace — as  one  whom  God  in  such  case  has 
commanded  and  invested  with  the  duty — to  order  as  soon  as  possible 
a  visitation  of  the  land  by  four  persons:  two  to  have  oversight  of 
revenues  and  property;  two  capable  of  judging  doctrine  and  persons. 
These,  by  authority  of  your  Grace,  should  regulate  and  care  for 
schools  and  parishes  as  may  be  necessary. 

Where  a  city  or  village  has  the  means,  your  Grace  has  power 
to  compel  it  to  support  schools,  pulpits  and  pastors.  If  they  are 
not  willing  to  do  this  for  their  own  salvation,  your  Grace,  as  the 
official  guardian  of  youth,  and  of  all  the  needy,  should  hold  them  to 
it  by  force,  so  that  they  must  do  it — just  as  they  are  compelled  to 
contribute  for  bridges,  paths  and  roads,  or  other  needs  of  the  land. 
Whatever  the  country  needs,  those  who  use  and  enjoy  it  should  help 
pay  for.  But  there  is  no  more  necessary  thing  than  to  educate  those 
who  will  come  after  us  and  bear  rule.  If  those  who  are  concerned 
have  not  the  means,  and  it  presses  them  too  heavily,  there  still 
remain  the  monastery  estates,  which  were  especially  endowed  for 
such  purposes  and  can  be  so  used  as  to  lighten  the  burden  of  the 
common  people.  For  your  Grace  can  easily  comprehend  that  there 
would  be  at  once  a  great  outcry,  and  one  not  easily  answered,  where 
the  schools  and  parishes  are  neglected  while  the  nobility  seize  upon 
the  monastery  estates — which,  it  is  already  said,  many  have  actually 
done.  Since,  however,  such  estates  bring  no  revenue  to  your  Grace's 
treasury,  and  were  originally  established  for  religious  purposes,  they 
should  in  justice  first  of  all  be  applied  to  this  object.  What  then 
remains,  your  Grace  can  apply  to  the  benefit  of  the  country,  or  of 
the  poor  people.1 

It  is  much  to  the  credit  of  the  Elector  that  he  was  so  far  from  offended 
by  such  plainness  of  speech  that  he  adopted  the  suggestion.  He  was 
a  phlegmatic  man,  whose  intellectual  processes  were  slow,  and  re- 
peated urgings  were  necessary  to  bring  him  to  act;  but  in  July,  1527, 
he  appointed  a  commission  to  visit  the  parishes  of  Saxony  and  set  them 
in  order.2  To  Melanchthon  was  committed  the  duty  of  preparing  a 
book  of  "instructions"  for  the  clergy,  that  should  be  a  standard  of 
judgment  for  the  commission  and  a  practical  manual  for  the  evangelical 
pastors.  Melanchthon  prepared  a  summary  of  evangelical  doctrines, 
in  both  Latin  and  German,  in  seventeen  articles:  of  faith,  the  cross, 
prayer,  the  fruits  of  the  spirit,  the  magistrate,  the  fear  of  God,  righteous- 

1  De  Wette,  3:  135;  cf.  39,  51.     LDS,  53:  386.     Currie,  155.    The  above  letter 
bears  date  November  22,  1526. 

2  Luther,  Justus  Jonas,  Pomeranius,  Spalatin,  and  other  persons  of  eminence 
were  appointed  on  the  general  commission.     Melanchthon  and  five  others  (John 
a  Plaintz,  a  knight,  Jerome  Schurf,  Erasmus,  not  of  Rotterdam,  Fred.  Myconius 
and  Justus  Menius,  a  clergyman  of  Eisenach)  inspected  Thuringia.    Jonas  was  a 
professor  in  the  University  of  Wittenberg  (provost) ;  then  at  Halle  helped  forward 
the  Reformation  until  compelled  by  Duke  George  to  leave;  afterwards  pastor 
and  filled  other  important  posts.     Bugenhagen,  on  Luther's  nomination,  became 
pastor  of  the  Wittenberg  church,  and  was  the  most  efficient  helper  of  Luther 
and  Melanchthon  in  reorganizing  the  German  church. 


278  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

ness,  judgment,  the  sacraments,  the  sign  of  the  eucharist,  penitence,  mar- 
riage, prohibited  cases,  human  traditions,  Christian  liberty,  free-will, 
the  law.  It  was  important  chiefly  as  a  first  step  toward  the  formal 
statement  of  the  new  understanding  of  the  teaching  of  Scripture,  but 
lacks  the  orderly  arrangement  and  felicity  of  phrase  attained  in  the 
later  confession  at  Augsburg.  Melanchthon  was  trying  his  wings  for 
a  higher  flight.1 

One  of  the  things  most  firmly  believed  by  Luther  was  the  necessity 
of  a  systematic  Christian  training  for  the  whole  people.  It  was  this 
conviction  that  led  him  to  insist  so  strongly  on  the  duty  of  the  clergy 
to  expound  the  Scriptures  regularly.  But  as  the  work  of  reforma- 
tion went  on,  and  as  he  learned  through  the  visitation  more  about  the 
actual  condition  of  the  people,  his  plan  enlarged  and  at  the  same  time 
became  more  definite.  He  could  entertain  little  rational  hope  of  making 
any  considerable  impression  on  the  adults  of  his  own  generation,  and 
highly  as  he  esteemed  preaching  he  had  no  illusions  as  to  its  effect. 
"Many  a  man  listens  to  preaching  for  three  or  four  years,"  he  testified, 
41  without  learning  enough  to  enable  him  to  make  answer,  if  questioned 
concerning  a  single  article  of  faith."  But  it  was  different  with  the  rising 
generation;  he  did  believe  it  possible,  by  diligent  Christian  instruction, 
to  bring  about  a  great  change  in  Germany.  And  accordingly,  as  soon 
as  possible,  he  turned  his  attention  to  the  composition  of  two  catechisms 
in  German,  both  of  which  were  issued  in  1529.2 

The  first  or  Larger  Catechism,  under  his  hands  outgrew  the  purpose 
of  a  catechism,  both  in  length  and  in  form.  The  method  of  question 
and  answer  was  abandoned,  and  it  became  in  fact  a  brief  compendium 
of  theology,  quite  unfit  for  the  instruction  of  the  young  and  never  em- 
ployed for  that  purpose.  But  the  second,  or  Smaller  Catechism,  was 
a  true  catechism,  so  brief  and  simple  as  to  be  well  adapted  for  its  purpose. 
Dr.  Schaff  well  calls  it  "a  great  little  book,  with  as  many  thoughts  as 
words,"  and  quite  truly  adds  that  it  marks  an  epoch  in  the  history  of 
religious  instruction.3  None  of  his  writings  bears  more  unmistakable 
imprint  of  Luther's  genius,  and  in  none  is  his  happy  faculty  of  stating 
profound  religious  truth  in  simple  words  and  racy  phrases  more  strikingly 
shown.  Its  defects  are  chiefly  the  result  of  the  method  adopted — a 
method  sanctioned  by  ancient  usage,  but  not  therefore  beyond  criticism — 
to  base  the  catechism,  not  on  the  entire  teaching  of  Scripture,  but  on 
three  familiar  liturgical  documents:  the  Decalogue,  the  Apostle's  Creed 

1  CR,  26:  2-27;  followed  by  a  version  in  German  by  Luther.  Also,  Sehling, 
Kirchenordnungen,  I:  142  seq. 

2LDS,  21:  1-155.  The  Small  Catechism  in  both  German  and  English  is 
given  in  Schaff's  "Creeds,"  3:  74-92. 

3  "Creeds,"  1:  245  seq.,  esp.  250. 


SPEYER  AND  THE  NEW  CHURCH  ORDER  279 

and  the  Lord's  Prayer.  This  method  results  in  an  incompleteness  that 
requires  the  supplementing  of  the  catechism  with  further  religious  instruc- 
tion, as  became  and  continues  to  be  the  practice  in  all  Lutheran  churches. 
Yet  it  may  be  said  without  exaggeration  that,  next  to  the  Bible,  no  other 
book  has  had  so  wide  circulation  among  the  German  people  or  had  so 
profound  and  lasting  an  influence  on  the  national  character. 

The  example  of  Prussia  and  Electoral  Saxony  was  followed  in  other 
German  principalities.  George,  Margrave  of  Brandenburg-Ansbach, 
assisted  his  brother  Albert  in  the  introduction  of  the  Reformation  into 
Prussia,  and  on  his  accession  to  his  principality  took  immediate  advantage 
of  the  Speyer  decree  to  forward  the  movement.  Prince  Wolfgang,  of 
Anhalt,  had  been  profoundly  impressed  by  Luther  at  the  Diet  of  Worms, 
and  from  that  time  favored  the  progress  of  the  Reformation  in  his  do- 
main. Duke  Ernest,  surnamed  the  Confessor,  also  introduced  the  new 
doctrine  and  practice  into  Braunschweig-Luneberg,  where  it  was  ac- 
cepted by  the  estates  in  1527.  The  Dukes  of  Mecklenberg  applied 
•to  Luther  for  evangelical  preachers  as  early  as  1524,  and  the  preaching 
of  Lutheran  doctrine  began  at  about  the  same  time  in  Silesia  and  Pomer- 
ania.  In  Northern  Germany,  in  fact,  there  remained  but  two  States 
that  still  maintained  allegiance  to  the  Roman  Church,  and  these  were 
held  more  by  the  firmness  of  their  rulers  than  by  the  disposition  of  their 
people.  Joachim  I  of  Brandenburg,  and  George  of  Saxony,  were  still 
staunch  upholders  of  the  old  faith  and  the  ancient  customs,  though 
not  without  their  grievances  against  the  Court  of  Rome.  In  Southern 
Germany,  the  Church  had  been  more  successful  in  retaining  its  hold. 
In  Franconia  the  new  gospel  had  made  considerable  progress;  in  the 
Upper  Palatinate  it  was  rather  tolerated  than  at  present  promoted; 
while  in  Wiirtemberg  nothing  had  prevented  its  triumph  but  the  char- 
acter of  Duke  Ulric,  whose  conduct  brought  about  his  banishment  in 
1519  and  the  transfer  of  the  principality  to  Ferdinand  of  Austria,  who 
tried  by  severe  persecution  to  eradicate  the  new  ideas.  Notwithstand- 
ing his  efforts,  the  free  cities  of  the  region — Reutlingen,  Esslingen,  Ulm, 
Hall,  Biberach — became  uncompromisingly  anti-Catholic. 

The  same  was  true  of  the  free  cities  elsewhere — indeed,  the  unanimity 
and  heartiness  with  which  they  adopted  the  Reformation  became  one 
of  the  distinctive  features  of  the  movement,  and  as  time  went  on  was 
proved  to  be  the  decisive  incident  of  the  Lutheran  struggle.  Several 
of  these  towns  had  not  waited  for  the  Speyer  decree  to  abandon  the 
Catholic  faith,  but  the  number  of  cities  that  undertook  a  reform  was 
rapidly  increased  by  the  action  of  the  Diet.  In  the  North,  all  the  great 
commercial  towns,  Bremen,  Hamburg  and  Liibeck,  Stralsund  and 
Danzig  became  Lutheran.  Magdeburg  also  accepted  the  new  faith* 


280  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

and  became  an  active  center  of  the  Lutheran  propaganda  as  did  Naum- 
burg  a  little  later.  In  the  central  region  of  the  Rhine,  Frankfort,  Worms 
and  Speyer  followed  this  example.  In  the  South,  Breslau,  Niirnberg  and 
Augsburg  had  abolished  the  mass  as  early  as  1524,  while  Strassburg  and 
Constance  were  no  longer  Catholic.1  Some  of  these  Southern  towns 
were  more  inclined  to  the  doctrines  and  methods  of  Zwingli  than  of 
Luther,  as  we  shall  soon  have  occasion  to  note,  but  they  were  at  any 
rate  enforcing  reforms.  Of  Central  and  Southern  Germany,  only  the 
ecclesiastical  principalities  of  Cologne,  Trier  and  Mainz,  together  with 
the  important  State  of  Bavaria,  were  to  be  counted  as  fully  on  the  side  of 
the  old  Church.  And  of  these,  Archbishop  Albert,  of  Cologne,  was 
thought  to  be  strongly  minded  to  follow  the  example  of  his  kinsman  of 
Prussia  and  secularize  his  principality.  By  1529  the  condition  of  the 
Roman  Church  in  Germany  was  indeed  little  short  of  desperate;  if  it 
were  to  be  saved,  something  must  be  done  and  that  right  speedily.  This 
was  the  opportunity  of  Charles  V. 

1  For  the  actual  form  that  the  Reformation  assumed  in  these  several  cases,  see 
the  collection  of  documents  given  by  Sehling. 


CHAPTER  VI 

THE  SECOND  DIET  OF  SPEYER  AND  THE  PROTEST 

FOR  some  years  after  the  first  Diet  of  Speyer  every  movement  made 
for  the  development  of  Luther's  work.  We  have  seen  how  political 
complications  led  to  the  recess  of  Speyer,  and  the  consequent  opportunity 
for  the  organization  of  the  Lutheran  Church;  all  the  while  the  church 
was  organizing,  the  way  was  paving  for  further  advances.  For  the 
first  five  years  after  the  edict  of  Worms  the  Emperor  had  been  occupied 
in  Spain,  and  in  his  wars  with  Francis  I.  Now  another  actor  was  to 
come  prominently  on  the  stage.  Indeed,  ever  since  the  taking  of  Con- 
stantinople, in  1453,  not  to  go  further  back,  the  Turks  had  been  a  menace 
to  Europe;  with  the  accession  of  Suleiman  II  to  the  throne  in  1520, 
they  became  yet  more  formidable.  He  was  a  great  and  active  ruler, 
and  during  his  long  reign  of  forty-six  years  he  was  always  engaged  in 
some  aggressive  enterprise.  In  1522  he  startled  Christendom  by  the 
capture  of  the  island  of  Rhodes,  after  a  long  and  heroic  defense  by  the 
Knights  of  St.  John.  He  was  almost  equally  powerful  by  sea  and  by 
land,  and  as  he  might  strike  at  any  time,  the  only  safety  was  in  being 
always  prepared  to  meet  him.  The  Emperor  could  make  no  plans  with- 
out considering  the  probabilities  of  a  Turkish  war;  the  Turks,  too, 
were  always  in  the  thoughts  of  the  people.  In  the  beginning  of  the 
Diet  of  Speyer,  messengers  came  from  King  Louis  of  Hungary,  begging 
assistance  against  this  enemy;  and  before  the  Diet  had  closed  news 
was  brought  of  the  great  battle  of  Mohacs,  the  defeat  of  the  Hungarians 
and  the  death  of  their  king  (August  29,  1526).  This  invasion  of  Hungary 
by  the  Turks  had  its  influence  in  forcing  the  Diet  to  adopt  its  tolerating 
edict;  and  the  death  of  King  Louis  made  way  for  the  election  of  Fer- 
dinand of  Austria  to  the  Hungarian  throne,  and  with  it  the  increase 
of  the  power  of  Charles  V,  who  could  not  but  profit  by  his  brother's 
advancement. 

Ferdinand's  first  duty  was  to  defend  his  new  kingdom,  but  we  need 
not  follow  him  in  his  conflict  with  the  Turks  and  with  his  rival  in  Hun- 
gary. All  the  while,  however,  we  may  bear  in  mind,  that  the  war  in 
Hungary  had  an  influence  on  the  events  with  which  we  are  immediately 
concerned:  it  divided  the  forces  of  Germany,  and  besides  and  especially 
it  rendered  it  out  of  the  question  still  further  to  weaken  the  Empire 
by  any  movement  against  the  Lutherans,  whose  help  was  needed  against 

281 


282  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

the  common  enemy.  The  Hungarian  affair  was  but  an  incident,  the 
main  drift  was  in  another  direction;  and  our  principal  concern  is  with 
the  Emperor  and  the  Holy  League.  And  here  it  will  be  worth  while 
to  go  sufficiently  into  detail  to  get  some  definite  impression  of  the  way 
in  which  the  great  game  of  politics  affected  the  fortunes  of  Luther  and 
his  cause. 

Two  letters  of  the  Pope  to  the  Emperor  have  already  been  mentioned. 
On  September  18,  1526,  the  Emperor  sent  a  long  letter  in  reply,  in 
which  he  accused  the  Pope  of  many  unfriendly  acts.  Among  other 
things  he  had  stirred  up  the  French  king  to  prolong  the  war  against 
him;  after  the  peace  of  Madrid,  he  had  tempted  Francis  I  to  violate  the 
treaty;  had  absolved  the  king  from  his  oath  and  entered  into  a  hostile 
league  with  him,  not  only  with  a  view  of  driving  the  Emperor  out  of 
Italy,  but  of  degrading  him  from  his  dignity.  "See,"  he  said,  "the 
baseness  of  the  thing.  Rome  receives  more  money  and  profits  out  of 
my  kingdom  and  provinces  than  from  all  Christendom  besides.  This 
may  be  proved  by  the  demands  of  the  princes  of  Germany,  when,  com- 
plaining heavily  of  the  Court  of  Rome,  they  desired  a  remedy  for  their 
evils."  These  complaints  he  had  slighted  out  of  respect  for  the  Church. 
He  had  given  the  Pope  no  just  cause  of  offense;  had  conferred  benefits, 
had  even  wronged  his  subjects  for  the  Pope's  sake;  and  his  reward  was 
the  Pope's  hostility.  He  begged  the  Pope  to  change  his  course.  "But," 
he  said,  "if  I  cannot  prevail  and  you  must  needs  go  on  like  a  warrior, 
I  protest  and  appeal  to  a  council,  that  all  quarrels  may  there  be  decided, 
and  demand  that  it  be  speedily  called." 

In  a  letter  to  the  College  of  Cardinals,  Charles  spoke  with  still  greater 
warmth  and  plainness.  He  mentioned  again  his  favoring  the  Pope 
at  the  expense  of  Germany,  and  the  demands  of  the  German  nobles; 
but  because  he  had  been  "born  and  bred  with  a  singular  love  to 
the  Church  of  Rome"  he  had  not  given  ear  to  their  demands;  and 
when  greater  troubles  afterwards  arose,  and  many  tumults  and  riots 
happened  throughout  Germany,  the  princes  had  for  that  reason  ap- 
pointed another  Diet,  he  had,  under  severe  penalties  forbidden  them  to 
assemble,  because  their  deliberations  would  have  been  prejudicial  to 
the  Pope  and  the  Church  of  Rome.  For  the  Pope's  sake  he  had  alienated 
the  heads  of  the  German  nobility.  He  begged  the  cardinals  to  ad- 
monish the  Pope,  and  exhort  him  to  peace  rather  than  to  war.  If  the 
Pope  would  not  call  a  council,  then  the  cardinals  must  call  it.1 

These  letters  were  immediately  published,  and  their  effect  was  to 
strengthen  the  Lutherans.  It  was  seen  how  little  the  Emperor  regarded 

1  A  serviceable  summary  of  these  letters  is  given  by  Sleiden,  p.  106  seq.  The 
originals  are  in  Raynaldus,  12:  561  seq. 


SPEYER  AND  THE  PROTEST  283- 

the  Pope's  authority  as  final;  that  he  recognized  the  justice  of  the  com- 
plaints of  the  Germans;  that  he  looked  to  a  general  council  for  a  settle- 
ment of  the  affairs  of  Christendom.  The  Pope,  too,  had  been  discredited 
in  the  face  of  Europe.  He  deeply  felt  his  humiliation  and  was  even  more 
than  ever  anxious  to  make  himself  independent  of  the  Emperor.  The 
allies  went  forward  to  their  hostile  purposes;  they  sent  ambassadors 
to  Charles  demanding  that  he  should  lay  down  his  arms,  and  consent 
to  such  conditions  as  would  secure  a  general  peace;  he  must  restore 
Milan  to  Sforza,  take  Francis's  ransom  and  return  his  sons  to  him,  and 
pay  the  King  of  England  money  he  -had  borrowed  from  him.  This  last 
demand  the  Emperor  rightly  resented  as  a  piece  of  impertinence.  He 
could  not,  he  said,  lay  down  his  arms,  but  he  was  willing  to  consent 
to  a  truce  for  three  years,  so  that  the  arms  of  all  might  be  united  against 
the  Turks.  As  he  could  not  assent  to  the  terms  that  the  allies  proposed, 
he  wished  them  to  propose  others,  saying  that  he  would  not  be  obstinate 
or  unreasonable. 

Of  course  nothing  came  of  the  embassy;  nothing  was  expected  to 
come  of  it;  preparations  for  war  went  on.  From  the  outset  the  con- 
federates were  weakened  by  jealousies  and  contrarieties  of  interest. 
They  did  not  trust  each  other;  each  was  afraid  that  the  other  might 
get  some  advantage,  and  that  whichever  one  got  what  he  sought  he 
would  thereupon  abandon  the  alliance.  Their  lack  of  zeal  and  coopera- 
tion was  the  Emperor's  opportunity.  Pescara,  who  had  greatly  dis- 
tinguished himself  in  Italy,  would  naturally  have  commanded  the  im- 
perial forces  if  he  had  been  alive;  but  he  had  died  shortly  before,  and 
the  command  devolved  upon  the  Duke  of  Bourbon.  Acting  with  vigor, 
he  soon  had  full  possession  of  Milan,  Sforza,  who  had  held  the  citadel, 
being  compelled  to  retire.  George  Frundsberg,  the  old  soldier  who  en- 
couraged Luther  at  Worms,  brought  into  Italy  14,000  Germans ;  Bourbon 
had  with  him  6,000  Spaniards;  2,000  Austrians  were  added  to  the 
number — in  all  22,000  men.  It  was  an  army  sui  generis.  The  men  were 
without  pay  and  were  kept  together  by  the  fame  and  influence  of  their 
commander.  Their  only  hope  of  reward  was  in  victory  and  the  plunder 
of  some  great  city.  With  such  an  army  Bourbon  began  his  march  in 
midwinter,  uncertain  where  he  would  strike.  He  first  thought  of  attacking 
Placentia,  but  cut  off  from  that  he  turned  his  eyes  toward  Bologna; 
and  that  being  too  well  prepared,  he  moved  on.  Florence  was  for  a 
while  in  his  thoughts,  but  difficulties  there  deterred  him;  and  he  next 
thought  of  Rome,  that  great  city  whose  glory  and  mystery  filled  the 
imaginations  of  men — the  city  at  the  sight  of  which  Luther  fell  upon 
the  ground,  and  which  Goethe  in  trembling  and  solicitude,  did  not  dare 
to  believe  that  he  would  ever  enter  until  he  had  actually  passed  through 


284  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

the  gates.  The  very  thought  of  attacking  it,  so  bold  and  bordering  so 
nearly  on  sacrilege,  banished  all  weariness  and  filled  every  breast  with 
enthusiasm. 

The  Pope  seemed  fated  to  trouble,  and  his  own  mistakes  or  worse 
prepared  the  way  for  it.  In  conformity  with  his  obligations  to  his  allies, 
he  had  sent  his  forces  to  Lombardy  to  cooperate  with  the  French  and 
Venetians  against  the  Imperialists.  Rome  was,  therefore,  without  de- 
fense. Cardinal  Colonna,  whose  family  had  a  chronic  grudge  against 
the  Popes,  took  advantage  of  the  opportunity  thus  afforded  to  enter  the 
city.  The  Pope  took  refuge  in  the  castle  of  St.  Angelo,  and  Colonna 
plundered  at  pleasure.  As  he  took  only  what  belonged  to  the  Pope 
and  his  friends,  the  rest  of  the  citizens  did  not  care  to  oppose  him.  The 
Spanish  ambassador,  profiting  by  the  Pope's  ill-fortune,  extorted  from 
him  an  agreement  to  condone  Colonna's  offense,  and  to  withdraw  his 
troops  from  Lombardy.  When  his  army  was  again  in  Rome,  he  repented 
of  his  forbearance  toward  Colonna,  degraded  him  from  his  cardinalate, 
excommunicated  the  rest  of  the  family,  and  laid  waste  their  possessions. 
This  done,  he  turned  his  attention  to  Naples,  which  he  was  to  attack 
in  conjunction  with  the  French.  But  Bourbon's  movements  alarmed 
him;  Lannoy,  the  imperial  viceroy  at  Naples,  proposed  to  treat  with 
him;  and  he  agreed  to  suspend  hostilities  for  eight  months,  to  restore 
Colonna  to  favor,  to  dignity  and  possessions.  On  the  other  hand,  Lannoy 
was  to  come  to  Rome  and  stand  between  him  and  harm  from  Bourbon. 
Having  abandoned  his  allies,  and  trusting  to  the  faith  and  authority 
of  Lannoy,  he  disbanded  his  army.  Lannoy  was  anxious  to  perform 
his  part  of  the  agreement,  but  if  Bourbon  had  been  willing  to  listen  to 
him  the  soldiers  could  not  be  controlled.  They  had  begun  the  march 
to  Rome,  and  to  Rome  they  must  go. 

On  the  march  Frundsberg  had  been  stricken  with  paralysis  and  the 
responsibility  and  direction  of  the  army  rested  with  Bourbon,  who  reached 
Rome  May  5,  1527.  He  was  a  man  without  a  country.  From  his  youth 
a  brilliant  soldier,  and  for  a  time  the  richest  and  most  powerful  subject 
of  France,  he  had  suffered  from  the  jealousy  of  his  sovereign,  and  at 
last,  under  the  forms  of  law,  was  deprived  of  his  estates.  Driven  into 
rebellion  against  Francis  I,  he  sought  and  obtained  service  under  the 
Emperor.  The  dying  Bayard,  the  embodiment  of  honor  and  loyalty, 
had  reproached  him  with  treason.  Perhaps  his  own  conscience  was  not 
clear;  he  was  not  perfectly  trusted  and  could  not  perfectly  trust  others. 
He  had  rendered  great  services  and  Charles  had  made  him  great  promises, 
but  the  Duke  could  not  feel  sure  that  those  promises  would  be  fulfilled. 
Shut  out  from  his  own  country,  separated  from  the  sympathies  of  men, 
alone,  with  a  feeling  half  of  desperation,  half  of  defiance,  he  thought  to 


SPEYER  AND  THE  PROTEST  285 

win  for  himself  a  kingdom  and  a  home.  His  isolation  and  the  peculiarity 
of  his  position,  made  him  feel  that  the  eyes  of  the  world  were  upon  him; 
and  he  knew  that  on  the  morrow  he  must  either  presumptuously  fail, 
or  do  a  deed  that  would  never  be  forgotten.  He  determined  not  to 
fail.  Like  commander,  like  soldiers:  they  were  there  before  Rome  on 
their  own  motion,  and  in  spite  of  the  remonstrances  of  the  viceroy; 
many  of  them  hated  the  Pope;  all  of  them  were  desperate  from  lack 
of  pay  and  the  hope  of  booty. 

There  was  no  time  to  be  lost,  for  an  army  was  hastening  to  the  relief 
of  Rome.  The  morning  of  May  6,  the  month  of  balmy  air  and  flowers, 
under  cover  of  a  friendly  mist,  the  assault  was  made.  Bourbon  had 
prepared  himself  to  lead  his  men.  Over  his  dark  armor  he  drew  a  white 
tunic,  that  every  one  might  recognize  him  and  follow  or  obey.  When 
the  assailants  hesitated  he  seized  a  scaling  ladder,  placed  it  against 
the  wall  and  attempted  to  mount;  but  his  feet  had  scarcely  touched 
the  lowest  round  when  he  fell,  mortally  wounded.1  With  great  presence 
of  mind  he  gave  orders  that  his  body  should  be  covered,  so  that  the 
soldiers  might  not  know  of  his  death  and  be  discouraged  by  it.  They 
recognized  him,  nevertheless,  and  revenge  was  added  to  their  other 
motives  for  deeds  of  bravery — they  forced  themselves  on  the  wall  and 
swept  away  all  opposition.  Rome  was  taken  and  suffered  as  rarely 
stormed  city  has  suffered  from  the  license  and  fury  of  its  captors.  A 
sympathetic  writer  says,  "How  vivid  a  lustre  was  cast  over  the  beginning 
of  the  sixteenth  century  by  the  splendor  of  Rome:  it  designates  a  period 
most  influential  in  the  development  of  the  human  mind.  But  this  day 
saw  the  light  of  the  splendor  extinguished  forever."  Before  this  calamity 
the  population  of  Rome  is  said  to  have  been  85,000;  after  it,  there  were 
no  more  than  32,000. 

The  Pope,  dazed  and  confused  by  the  threatening  storm,  did  not  use 
even  those  means  of  defense  within  his  powers.  Instead  of  escaping 
from  the  city  as  he  might  have  done,  he  shut  himself  up  in  the  Castle  of 
St.  Angelo,  and  was  completely  in  the  power  of  his  enemies.  The  news 
of  the  calamity  of  Rome  and  of  the  Pope's  situation  everywhere  produced 
the  same  impression.  At  Madrid,  there  was  feasting  and  rejoicing  on 
account  of  the  birth  of  a  son  to  the  Emperor.  Charles  at  once  ordered 
the  festivities  to  cease,  disclaimed  all  responsibility  for  what  Bourbon 
had  done,  put  himself  and  his  court  in  mourning,  and  appointed  prayers 
for  the  liberation  of  the  Pope.  In  an  age  of  finesse  and  dissimulation 

1  Benvenuto  Cellini,  incomparable  swashbuckler,  bravo  and  braggart,  as  well 
as  great  artist,  in  his  Autobiography  gives  the  most  vivid  account  extant  of  this 
assault  and  capture,  and  claims  that  he  fired  the  fatal  shot  at  Bourbon.  (1:  71, 
ed.  Anne  Macdpwell,  London,  1903.)  For  the  most  part  I  have  followed  sec- 
ondary authorities,  as  Sleidan  and  Robertson,  in  the  above  account  of  this  cam- 
paign. 


286  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

he  might  easily  have  been  insincere;  but  remembering  the  different, 
even  incompatible,  sentiments  by  which  men  are  sometimes  governed, 
one  hesitates  to  say  that  he  was  playing  a  part.1 

But  whatever  may  have  been  the  real  feelings  of  the  Emperor,  there 
can  be  no  doubt  as  to  those  of  Catholics  generally.  Interest  in  the 
misfortunes  of  the  Pope  was  intensified  by  the  apparent  danger  to  Europe. 
In  this  case  as  in  others,  the  imperialists  had  been  too  successful.  Henry 
VIII  was  now  prepared  to  cooperate  more  actively  with  the  confederates, 
and  they  felt  the  necessity  of  more  vigorous  efforts.  Fortunately  for 
them  the  Emperor  was  not  able  to  take  advantage  of  the  situation — 
one  tremendous  blow  had  been  struck  to  which  there  could  be  no  second. 
Lannoy  threw  an  additional  force  into  Rome,  which  indeed  added  to  the 
distress  of  the  helpless  city,  but  contributed  nothing  to  the  strength 
of  the  imperialists.  Bourbon's  army  had  been  yet  further  demoralized 
by  license  and  plunder;  their  pay  was  still  overdue,  and  the  soldiers, 
consulting  only  their  own  will,  refused  to  leave  quarters  so  much  to 
their  liking.  Their  idleness  and  insubordination  left  the  field  open. 
A  part  of  the  plan  was  for  Henry  VIII  to  send  a  force  into  the  Nether- 
lands, but  this  was  never  attempted,  because  of  the  opposition  of  the 
English  people,  who  did  not  wish  their  trade  with  the  Netherlanders 
interrupted.  The  French  and  Venetians  for  a  time  acted  vigorously 
and  effectively.  Florence  had  taken  the  occasion  of  the  Pope's  troubles 
to  revolt  from  the  Medici  and  set  up  a  government  of  its  own;  it  now 
joined  the  French,  and  the  French  commander  accomplished  everything 
that  he  attempted,  and  carried  his  conquests  as  far  as  he  dared.  All 
the  north  of  Italy  was  within  his  grasp;  Milan  might  easily  have  been 
taken;  but  he  knew  that  as  soon  as  the  allies  got  what  they  wanted,  they 
could  no  longer  be  expected  to  trouble  themselves  about  French  interests. 
Instead,  therefore,  of  finishing  his  work  in  Lombardy,  he  turned  his 
steps  toward  Rome.  All  the  while  the  Pope  had  been  a  prisoner,  and 
it  was  this  threatening  movement  that  compelled  the  Emperor  to  de- 
cide what  was  to  be  done  with  him.  Negotiations  were  opened;  the  Pope 
agreed  to  pay  450,000  crowns  for  the  use  of  the  Emperor's  army,  to 
take  no  part  in  the  war  against  him,  either  in  Lombardy  or  Naples,  to 
grant  certain  other  privileges,  and  to  give  security  for  the  fulfillment  of 
the  treaty.  On  these  conditions  he  was  set  at  liberty;  the  imperial 
army  was,  however,  still  in  Rome. 

Lautrec,  the  French  commander,  with  an  army  of  35,000  men,  now 
turned  to  Naples.  The  danger  in  that  direction  at  length  aroused  the 
army  in  Rome,  and  it  hastened  to  reach  Naples  before  the  French.  The 

1  Robertson,  however,  does  not  hesitate  to  call  his  conduct  "an  artifice  no  less 
hypocritical  than  gross." — "Charles  V,"  1:  573. 


SPEYER  AND  THE  PROTEST  287 

attempt  was  successful,  and  Lautrec  was  compelled  to  invest  the  city. 
His  army  cut  off  supplies  by  land,  and  the  fleet  of  Andrew  Doria,  the 
great  Genoese  captain,  maintained  a  close  blockade  by  sea.  The  im- 
perialists attempted  in  vain  to  break  the  blockade,  but  what  they  could 
not  do  for  themselves  their  enemies  did  for  them.  The  Venetians,  not 
caring  to  take  Naples  for  the  French,  did  not  vigorously  cooperate 
with  them.  The  Pope,  afraid  that  Florence,  siding  with  the  French, 
would  be  permanently  lost  to  the  Medici  if  the  French  should  be  suc- 
cessful, threw  his  influence  against  them.  Francis  I,  with  his  fatal  aptitude 
for  blundering,  alienated  the  Genoese  commander,  and  drove  him  into 
the  service  of  the  Emperor;  Doria  withdrew  his  fleet  from  Naples  and  after 
a  while  returned  to  bring  abundant  supplies  to  the  garrison  which  he 
had  before  reduced  to  extremest  want.  The  Prince  of  Orange,  who  had 
succeeded  Bourbon  at  Rome,  and  now  commanded  the  garrison  at 
Naples,  had  the  enthusiastic  support  of  his  men.  Lautrec's  army  was 
weakened  by  pestilence.  The  besiegers  became  the  besieged;  Lautrec 
died;  the  army  attempted  a  retreat;  and  the  miserable  remnant  of  it 
was  forced  to  capitulate. 

The  combination  against  the  Emperor  had  failed  in  all  its  positive 
expectations.  No  one  of  the  parties  had  gained  what  it  sought;  all  were 
tired  of  the  war,  and  all  were  more  or  less  dependent  on  the  generosity 
or  discretion  of  the  Emperor.  There  was  first  a  treaty  between  the 
Emperor  and  the  Pope,  concluded  at  Barcelona,  June,  1528.  The 
Emperor  agreed  to  restore  all  the  territories  that  had  belonged  to  the 
ecclesiastical  States;  to  reestablish  the  Medici  in  Florence;  to  remit  the 
case  of  Milan  to  the  Pope;  and  to  marry  his  natural  daughter  to  the  head 
of  the  house  of  Medici.  The  Pope  in  turn  gave  the  Emperor  the  investi- 
ture of  Naples  and  absolved  all  who  were  connected  with  the  plundering 
of  Rome.  The  next  year  (July,  1529),  at  Cambray,  peace  was  made 
with  Francis  I,  who  received  back  again  his  sons,  so  long  hostages  at 
Madrid,  and  scarcely  anything  else.  The  Venetians  and  others,  who  had 
been  parties  against  the  Emperor,  were  not  considered. 

After  three  years  of  war  and  confusion,  the  political  situation  did 
not  appear  to  have  been  very  much  changed.  In  France  things  were 
moving  on  in  the  usual  way.  Bourbon,  Pescara  and  Lannoy,  great  sol- 
diers on  the  imperial  side,  and  Lautrec  on  the  French  side,  had  died. 
Genoa  had  become  independent  by  the  efforts  of  Doria.  Milan  had  again 
its  own  ruler,  Duke  Sforza.  Florence  was  again  subject  to  the  Medici; 
Naples,  even  more  than  before,  belonged  to  the  Emperor.  The  Pope 
had  secured  more  by  the  favor  of  the  Emperor  than  he  had  lost  by  making 
war  on  him.  Things  looked  nearly  the  same,  but  they  were  not  the 
same.  A  great  change  was  already  preparing  for  England;  the  wedge 


288  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

had  already  entered,  which,  driven  home,  was  to  separate  the  greatest 
of  modern  peoples  from  the  Papacy.  Charles  V  had  gone  forward  in 
every  way.  He  had  been  ten  years  Emperor;  his  natural  powers  had 
developed  and  seasoned;  he  had  learned  much  by  thought  and  ex- 
perience; he  had  gained  confidence  in  himself;  he  had  come  to  realize, 
and  the  world  had  been  forced  to  acknowledge,  his  preeminent  position. 
His  dealings  with  the  Pope  had  taught  him  how  the  Papacy  was  ham- 
pered by  political  complications,  and  how  impossible  it  was  for  the 
Pope  to  do  anything  toward  the  healing  of  the  breach  in  the  Church. 
Clement  was  hesitating,  vacillating,  swayed  by  conflicting  interests; 
his  circumstances,  no  less  than  his  character,  deprived  him  of  the  con- 
fidence of  Europe  and  unfitted  him  to  lead.  Charles  saw  this,  and  re- 
alized that  he  himself  was  the  head  of  Christendom;  that  the  power 
and  the  responsibility  were  with  him.  He  realized,  too,  the  difficulties 
of  his  position:  on  the  one  hand  it  was  his  duty  to  repress  heresy  and 
prevent  schism,  on  the  other  he  had  a  duty  to  the  State — he  must  not 
involve  his  people  in  civil  war;  he  must  protect  the  Empire.  In  all  this 
the  Pope  might  help  him,  but  he  could  only  be  a  helper.  As  on  the 
Catholic  side  the  Pope  had  retired  into  the  second  place,  so  on  the  other 
the  leadership  had  passed  from  Luther  to  the  secular  princes.  He  was 
still  necessary  to  his  cause,  but  Wittenberg  was  no  longer  the  center  and 
source  of  its  power. 

While  these  things  were  doing  in  Italy,  an  affair  had  occurred  in  Ger- 
many, unimportant  in  itself,  that  was  to  have  serious  consequences 
for  the  cause  of  the  Reformation.  The  villainy  of  a  needy  lawyer  came 
near  precipitating  a  war  between  the  Catholics  and  the  Lutherans.  Otto 
Pack,  an  officer  at  the  court  of  Duke  George  of  Saxony,  privately  informed 
Philip  of  Hesse  that  Duke  George,  Ferdinand,  the  Dukes  of  Bavaria 
and  others  had  entered  into  a  conspiracy  against  him  and  the  Elector 
of  Saxony.  He  gave  the  Landgrave  a  copy  of  the  agreement  and  promised 
to  show  him  the  original.  Philip  and  the  Elector  began  immediately 
to  make  preparations  for  defense,  and  when  they  thought  themselves 
ready  published  the  pretended  agreement  and  sent  letters  to  the  parties 
implicated  and  asked  explanations.  The  accused  princes  at  once  denied 
having  made  such  an  agreement.  The  Count  Palatine  and  the  Arch- 
bishop of  Trier,  so  often  a  peacemaker,  effected  a  reconciliation,  but 
the  incident  served  to  reveal,  and  at  the  same  time  to  increase,  the 
antagonism  of  the  parties  to  each  other.  It  is  a  satisfaction  to  add  that 
Pack  was  afterwards  convicted  of  his  forgeries  and  beheaded.  This  in- 
teresting affair  occurred  in  the  latter  part  of  1527.1 

The  villainy  of  Pack  and  the  too  ready  credulity  of  Landgrave  Philip, 
[  l  For  the  documents  in  this  case,  see  Walch,  16:  373  aeq. 


SPEYER  AND  THE  PROTEST  289 

had  between  them  nearly  effected  the  ruin  of  the  Lutheran  cause.  That 
prince,  who  was  rapidly  winning  recognition  as  the  leader  of  the  party, 
was  led  to  take  a  most  questionable  step.  It  had  hitherto  been  recognized 
as  part  of  the  constitution  of  the  Empire  that  no  German  State  should 
make  a  league  with  any  outside  Power.  Not  until  the  Treaty  of  West- 
phalia, in  1648,  was  the  right  to  make  such  alliances  given  legal  recogni- 
tion, and  the  introduction  of  that  principle  into  the  imperial  constitution 
is  rightly  recognized  by  all  students  of  political  history  as  the  virtual 
dissolution  of  the  Empire.  At  this  "time,  the  making  of  such  a  league 
was  on  all  hands  regarded  as  little  short  of  treason  to  the  fatherland.  In 
spite  of  this  unwritten  law,  respected  as  it  was  above  much  law  that  was 
written,  Philip  appealed  to  France  and  Bohemia  to  become  his  allies 
in  resisting  the  attack  that  he  supposed  to  be  threatened.  It  is  an  ancient 
maxim  that  necessity  knows  no  law,  and  had  the  event  proved  the  fears 
of  Philip  to  be  well-founded  his  conduct  might  have  had  some  excuse. 
In  appealing  to  Bohemia,  he  was  of  course  within  his  rights,  as 
Bohemia  was  at  least  a  nominal  part  of  the  Empire;  but  in  turning  to 
France  he  violated  every  tradition  that  Germans  had  hitherto  held 
dear.  The  disowning  of  the  alleged  agreement  of  the  Catholic  princes, 
and  the  condign  punishment  of  Pack,  not  only  made  the  action  of  Philip 
appear  pusillanimous  and  ridiculous,  but  rendered  his  conduct  odious 
to  all  Germany.  Other  princes  hesitated  to  become  known  as  allies 
of  a  man  who  had  shown  himself  in  a  supposed  crisis  to  be  possessed  of 
so  little  judgment,  prudence  and  patriotism. 

It  was  now  the  spring  of  1529,  and  time  for  the  meeting  of  the  imperial 
Diet,  to  be  held  again  this  year  at  Speyer,  and  to  be  known  as  one  of 
the  most  memorable  sessions  in  the  history  of  the  Empire.  The  Lutherans 
came  disorganized  and  discouraged  to  face  a  compact,  confident  Catholic 
opposition.  The  Emperor  was  still  too  busy  with  his  diplomacy  in 
Italy  to  be  present  in  person,  though  he  was  aware  that  the  affairs  of 
Germany  urgently  demanded  his  attention;  and  his  brother,  Ferdinand 
of  Austria,  presided  as  his  deputy.  The  treaty  of  Cambray  was  not  yet 
concluded,  but  the  power  of  his  enemies  was  broken;  peace  seemed 
assured  for  some  years,  at  least,  and  he  promised  the  Estates  that  he 
would  come  to  Germany  as  soon  as  his  affairs  elsewhere  would  permit. 
It  was  quite  evident  that  the  imperial  authority,  and  whatever  weight 
Charles  derived  from  his  ascendancy  in  Europe,  was  to  be  used  for  the 
settlement  of  the  religious  troubles  of  Germany. 

And  it  was  speedily  manifest  that  the  Emperor's  convictions  and 
policy  had  undergone  no  change  since  his  first  Diet  at  Worms;  he  still 
intended,  as  he  there  declared,  to  endeavor  to  suppress  the  new  religious 
doctrines  and  practices  and  restore  the  Catholic  faith  and  rites  through- 


290  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

out  the  Empire.  This  was  disclosed  to  the  Diet  by  the  announcement 
of  his  commissioners,  early  in  the  session,  that  he  abolished  "by  his  im- 
perial and  absolute  authority"  the  Speyer  recess  of  1526,  which,  he  said, 
had  been  the  cause  "of  much  ill  counsel  and  misunderstanding. "  l  Of 
course  the  Emperor  had  no  such  absolute  authority  as  he  thus  assumed  to 
quash  a  recess  of  the  Diet,  but  the  acquiescence  of  the  majority  of  the 
body  in  his  action  had  the  practical  effect  of  repealing  the  recess,  and 
gave  a  quasi-validity  to  his  usurpation  of  power  which,  under  other  cir- 
cumstances, would  have  been  stoutly  resisted  by  the  Estates.  With  this 
virtual  repeal  of  the  Speyer  recess  of  1526,  the  Lutherans  were  left 
wholly  without  authority  of  law  for  what  they  had  done  in  the  way  of 
reformation. 

The  Diet  now  took  up  the  more  important  question  of  deciding  what 
should  be  the  law  of  the  Empire  for  the  future.  The  demands  of  Charles 
through  his  commissioners  were  more  moderate  than  we  might  have 
expected;  he  evidently  did  not  think  it  prudent  just  then  to  attempt 
the  undoing  of  what  had  been  accomplished;  there  was  no  insistence 
that  alienated  property  should  be  restored  to  the  Church;  it  was  not 
even  asked  that  the  ancient  rites  should  be  resumed  where  they  had 
been  discontinued.  Charles,  for  the  present  at  least,  was  content  to 
play  the  part  of  Canute,  and  speak  to  the  Reformation  a  "Thus  far 
and  no  further."  The  recess  that  was  presented  to  the  Diet  for  adoption 
declared  that  those  States  of  the  Empire  that  had  hitherto  executed  the 
Worms  decree  should  continue  to  do  so;  that  in  the  other  States  no 
further  innovations  should  be  made,  on  pain  of  the  imperial  ban; 
it  forbade  any  prince  or  city  to  deprive  any  ecclesiastic  or  religious 
corporation  of  authority  or  revenues;  it  declared  that  sects  denying  the 
sacrament  of  the  true  body  and  blood  of  Christ  (by  which  the  Zwinglians 
were  especially  intended)  should  not  be  tolerated,  and  that  Anabaptists 
were  everywhere  to  be  suppressed;  and  finally,  it  provided  for  a  censor- 
ship of  books.  In  a  word,  as  between  Catholic  and  Lutheran,  things 
ivere  to  remain  in  statu  quo  until  the  meeting  of  a  general  council,  now 
definitely  promised  for  the  following  year  by  both  Emperor  and  Pope, 
and  in  the  meantime  both  parties  were  to  make  common  cause  against 
all  other  would-be  reformers.2 

The  Lutheran  princes  and  towns  were  much  alarmed  by  this  action 
of  the  Diet,  and  those  Southern  towns  that  had  shown  a  decided  prefer- 
ence for  the  doctrines  of  Zwingli  were  still  more  alarmed.  The  process 
of  organization  described  in  the  preceding  chapter  was  just  fairly  begun, 
and  to  stop  it  at  this  point  meant  virtual  ruin  to  the  work  of  reform. 

1  Walch,  16:  258.     The  editor  thinks  this  declaration  of  the  Emperor  so  im- 
portant that  he  has  printed  it  in  bold-face  type. 

2  Walch,  16:  258  seq.     Note  especially  paragraphs  5,  6,  9. 


SPEYER  AND  THE  PROTEST  291 

Moreover,  this  was  rightly  understood  to  be  merely  a  first  step  in  the 
policy  of  Charles,  and  to  submit  tamely  to  this  would  make  later  re- 
sistance only  the  more  difficult  and  indefensible.  As  soon  as  the  probable 
demands  of  the  Emperor  could  be  surmised,  before  they  were  in  form 
for  presentation  to  the  Diet,  George  Vogler,  the  chancellor  of  the  Mar- 
grave of  Brandenburg,  was  commissioned  to  draw  up  a  formal  reply.  This 
document,  presented  to  the  Diet  on  April  20th,  1529,  is  the  famous 
Protest,  from  which  the  subsequent  popular  name  of  the  reforming  party 
was  derived.  Two  grounds  are  alleged  by  the  signers  for  their  refusal 
to  be  bound  by  the  action  of  the  Diet.  The  first  is  the  constitutional 
argument,  that  the  unanimous  vote  by  which  the  recess  of  1526  had  been 
adopted,  and  under  which  they  had  since  acted,  could  not  be  rescinded 
and  reversed  by  a  majority  vote.  No  student  of  constitutional  law  would 
say  that  this  is  a  valid  argument;  what  any  parliamentary  body  can 
enact,  a  subsequent  session  may  repeal.  That  is  a  fundamental  and 
generally  accepted  maxim  of  law.  It  is  an  equally  fundamental  principle 
that  a  unanimous  vote  for  a  measure  gives  it  no  greater  legal  validity 
than  the  vote  of  a  mere  majority  of  one — though  there  may  be  a  greater 
moral  weight  given  by  unanimity  than  by  a  small  majority.  This  part 
of  the  Protest,  therefore,  is  neither  strong  nor  convincing.  The  second 
ground  of  objection  is  very  different:  the  proposed  recess,  they  say, 
contains  things  that  "concern  the  glory  of  God  and  the  welfare  and 
salvation  of  the  souls  of  every  one  of  us,"  and  as  to  these  they  are 
pledged  in  baptism  and  the  divine  word  to  hold  God  as  highest  King 
and  Lord  of  lords.  In  such  things  they  would  not  obey  the  majority, 
because  in  matters  that  concern  the  welfare  and  salvation  of  the  soul 
"each  stands  for  himself  and  must  give  account  before  God.  There- 
fore in  this  sphere  no  one  can  make  it  another's  duty  to  do  or  decide 
less  or  more,  which  one  is  not  bound  to  do  for  other  honest,  well- 
founded  and  good  reasons."  They  would  have  nothing  to  answer 
before  God,  should  they  act  against  their  conscience  and  so  lead  others 
astray.  They  would  daily  and  heartily  beseech  God  to  enlighten  them 
and  "give  his  Holy  Spirit  to  lead  us  into  all  truth  through  which  we 
may  come  with  unanimity  to  a  just,  true,  life-attaining,  saving  Chris- 
tian faith,  through  Christ,  our  only  Mercy-seat,  Mediator,  Advocate 
and  Saviour.  Amen."  1 

It  was  a  pious  and  brave  document,  the  Instrumentum  Magnum  of 
the  Reformation — the*  first  assertion,  by  an  influential  body  of  rulers, 
of  the  supreme  authority  of  Scripture  and  the  rights  of  the  individual 
conscience.  When  Luther  asserted  these  same  principles  at  Worms, 
a  lone  monk  stood  against  the  world.  This  second  assertion  was  sup- 

1  For  the  document  in  full,  see  Appendix  VI. 


292  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

ported  by  more  than  one-third  of  the  power  and  wealth  of  Germany, 
for  to  the  document  were  appended  the  signatures  of  John,  Elector 
of  Saxony,  George,  Margrave  of  Brandenburg,  Ernest,  Duke  of  Liine- 
berg,  Philip,  Landgrave  of  Hesse,  and  Wolfgang,  Prince  of  Anhalt,  as 
well  as  representatives  of  fourteen  free  cities:  Strassburg,  Niirnberg,  Ulm, 
Constance,  Linden,  Memmingen,  Nordlingen,  Heilbronn,  Reutlingen, 
Isny,  St.  Gall,  Wissenberg  and  Windsheim.  Some  of  these  towns  were 
Zwinglian  rather  than  Lutheran,  and  so  had  a  double  reason  for  pro- 
test, for  they  had  been  pointedly  excluded  from  the  measure  of  tolerance 
granted  to  the  Lutherans. 

It  would  be  a  pleasure  to  stop  with  this  commendation  of  the  Protest, 
but  it  is  a  duty  to  point  out  that  the  document  contained  paragraphs 
inconsistent  with  its  main  contention  and  unworthy  of  the  signers.  To 
their  principle  that  each  must  stand  for  himself  before  God  they  made 
exception  in  the  case  of  the  Anabaptists,  and  express  their  approval 
of  the  article  in  the  recess  that  made  anabaptism  a  capital  offense,  to  be 
punished  by  fire  or  sword.  They  also  profess  to  approve  the  article  on 
a  censorship  of  the  press,  to  be  established  in  each  State,  but  as  they 
never  took  any  steps  to  establish  such  a  censorship,  this  must  be  pro- 
nounced an  empty  pretense.  But  their  declaration  about  the  Ana- 
baptists was  neither  hypocritical  nor  empty,  as  their  subsequent  conduct 
showed.  The  liberty  of  conscience  that  the  Protestants  demanded  was, 
the  right  of  each  State  of  the  Empire  to  establish  and  maintain  what- 
ever religious  system  it  pleased,  to  compel  the  adoption  of  this  by  all 
its  subjects  or  citizens,  and  to  persecute  all  those  who  claimed  the  right 
that  the  princes  asserted  for  themselves  in  the  name  of  God  and  the 
divine  word. 

This  cheerful  acquiescence  of  the  Lutherans  in  the  lethal  threats  of 
the  Diet  against  the  Anabaptists,  brings  forcibly  to  our  attention  one 
of  the  puzzling  problems  of  the  Reformation:  How  could  the  best  men 
of  the  sixteenth  century  have  been  so  blind  to  the  intellectual  contradic- 
tion and  the  ethical  wickedness  of  their  attitude?  One  suspects  that  they 
might  have  replied  in  the  words  of  an  American  political  leader,  that 
it  was  a  condition  and  not  a  theory  that  confronted  them.  The  work  of 
reorganization  in  the  German  States  had  removed  the  question  of  tolera- 
tion from  the  region  of  academic  discussion  into  that  of  practical  action. 
The  princes,  and  Luther  as  their  chief  adviser,  had  forced  on  them  by 
events  the  question,  How  far  was  dissent  from  the  new  order  estab- 
lished by  civil  authority  to  be  permitted  for  alleged  reasons  of  conscience? 
What  doctrines  and  practices,  other  than  those  definitely  prescribed, 
should  be  allowed?  Like  many  another,  Luther  was  not  a  clear  thinker 
about  such  matters,  and  he  made  the  initial  mistake  of  confusing  order 


SPEYER  AND  THE  PROTEST  293 

with  uniformity — of  order  with  diversity  he  had  no  conception.  And 
he  therefore  found  himself  in  an  embarrassing  dilemma:  either  he  must 
deny  much  that  he  had  formerly  affirmed  with  vehemence,  or  he  must 
(as  it  seemed  to  him)  endanger  the  success  of  his  work  of  reorganization, 
on  which  he  had  set  his  heart. 

Many  a  man  has  worked  out  in  seclusion  what  seemed  to  him  a  per- 
fect and  wholly  admirable  theory  only  to  find  when  he  had  the  oppor- 
tunity to  reduce  it  to  practice  that  it  did  not  work  well;  or,  what  is 
quite  as  common  an  experience,  he  finds  that  he  did  not  fully  believe 
it  himself — that  he  must  make  an  exception  here,  and  round  off  a  sharp 
corner  there,  before  he  would  be  willing  to  apply  and  abide  by  it.  Luther 
was  by  no  means  as  radical  as  he  had  been  thought  to  be;  he  was  not 
as  radical  as  he  had  at  one  time  thought  himself  to  be;  his  tem- 
perament was  that  of  a  conservative,  his  genius  was  constructive.  In 
his  revolt  from  Rome  he  had  only  partially  broken  with  the  feudalism 
on  which  the  Roman  Church  was  founded,  and  he  easily  became  sub- 
servient to  the  new  State  feudalism  that  was  developing  in  the  Empire. 
We  have  already  traced  the  process  of  development,  and  we  now  see 
its  result.  Luther  becomes  the  obsequious  and  ignoble  tool  of  the  na- 
tional particularism,  at  the  expense  of  nationalism.  At  bottom  his 
antagonism  to  the  Zwinglians,  as  will  presently  be  made  clear,  was  quite 
as  much  political  as  religious,  and  this  was  more  emphatically  true  of 
his  feeling  toward  the  Anabaptists.  The  Anabaptists  sought  a  true 
democracy,  through  a  revival  of  the  social  gospel  proclaimed  by 
Jesus  and  realized  for  a  time  in  the  primitive  Church,  and  to 
Luther  no  heresy  could  have  been  greater  than  this.  Nor  could  any 
other  form  of  heresy  seem  more  dangerous  to  the  ambitious  princes 
of  the  Empire. 

But  even  with  all  explanations  and  deductions  that  the  most  charitably 
inclined  can  make,  the  intellectual  and  ethical  contradictions  in  Luther's 
teaching  and  conduct  still  remain  a  problem  difficult  of  solution.  Nothing 
could  be  more  emphatic  than  his  early  declarations  in  favor  of  complete 
religious  liberty.  "We  should  overcome  heretics  with  books,"  he  said 
in  his  "Address  to  the  Christian  Nobility,"  "not  with  fire,  as  the  old 
Fathers  did.  If  there  were  any  skill  in  overcoming  heretics  with  fire, 
the  executioner  would  be  the  most  learned  doctor  in  the  world;  and  there 
would  be  no  need  to  study,  but  he  that  could  get  another  into  his  power 
could  burn  him."  :  In  his  "Babylonian  Captivity"  he  was  even  more 
explicit — "I  cry  aloud  on  behalf  of  liberty  and  conscience,  and  I  pro- 
claim with  confidence  that  no  kind  of  law  can  with  justice  be  imposed  on 
Christians,  whether  by  men  or  by  angels,  except  so  far  as  they  themselves 

1  Wace  and  Bucheim,  p.  75. 


294  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

will;  for  we  are  free  from  all."  l  And  that  this  was  for  some  time  his 
practical  attitude  as  well  as  his  theory,  is  plain.  He  wrote  from  his  Patmos 
to  Spalatin,  when  things  were  most  troublous  in  Wittenberg  and  he  was 
greatly  concerned  about  their  outcome:  "See  that  our  Prince  does  not 
imbrue  his  hands  in  the  blood  of  those  new  prophets  of  Zwickau."  2 
And  a  few  months  later  he  wrote  to  the  Elector  with  his  own  hand:  "In 
this  business  no  sword  can  counsel  or  help;  God  must  manage  here 
alone,  without  any  human  care  or  aid."  3  Even  when  he  came  to  elaborate 
more  fully  his  views  of  civil  government  and  the  relation  of  the  Christian 
thereto,  he  did  not  modify  his  opinion  concerning  persecution — "Heresy 
is  a  spiritual  thing,  that  can  be  cut  down  by  no  sword,  burned  with  no 
fire,  drowned  with  no  water.  But  it  is  only  God's  word  that  does  it, 
as  says  Paul  in  2  Cor.  10:  4,  5."  "Every  one  must  believe  only  because 
it  is  God's  word,  and  because  he  inwardly  realizes  that  it  is  truth." 
"It  belongs  to  each  and  every  Christian  to  recognize  and  judge  concerning 
doctrine,  and  it  so  belongs  to  them  that  he  is  accursed  who  shall  have 
assailed  this  right  with  a  single  javelin."  • 

But  it  is  doubtful  if  Luther  realized  the  sweeping  character  of  such 
declarations  and  the  necessary  logical  deductions  from  them.  He  was 
really  pleading  for  his  own  liberty,  and  putting  his  particular  claim  into 
general  statements.  The  man  never  lived  who  did  not  believe  that  he 
should  be  tolerated;  it  is  the  question  of  tolerating  the  other  man  that 
causes  all  the  difficulty.  When  the  pinch  came,  Luther  discovered 
that  he  was  not  willing  to  tolerate  the  other  man.5  He  remained  opposed 
to  bloodshed,  and  never  approved  the  putting  of  heretics  to  death — 
so  far  he  would  have  dissented  from  the  Speyer  decree — but  he  would  have 
all  disturbers  treated  as  he  had  treated  Carlstadt :  they  should  be  banished 
from  the  place  where  they  were  a  disturbing  element.  He  quite  changed 
his  notion  of  Christian  liberty,  to  correspond  with  this  policy — "If 
every  one  now  is  allowed  to  handle  the  faith  so  as  to  introduce  into  the 
Scriptures  his  own  fancies,  and  then  expound  them  according  to  his  own 
understanding,  and  cares  to  find  only  what  flatters  the  populace  and  the 
senses,  certainly  not  an  article  of  faith  could  stand.  It  is  dangerous,  yes, 
terrible  in  the  highest  degree,  to  hear  or  believe  anything  against  the 
faith  and  doctrine  of  the  entire  holy  Christian  Church.  He  who  doubts 
any  article  which  the  Church  has  believed  from  the  beginning  contin- 

1  Wace  and  Bucheim,  /&.,  p.  196. 

2  Letter  to  Spalatin,  January  17,  1522,  De  Wette,  2:  135. 

*  March  5,  1522,  De  Wette,  2:  137;  Currie,  98.  Cf.  his  similar  declaration  of 
August  24,  1524,  De  Wette,  2:  547. 

«LDS,  22:  90  seq. 

8  "In  order  to  avoid  trouble,  we  should  not,  if  possible,  suffer  contrary  teachinga 
in  the  same  State.  Even  unbelievers  should  be  forced  to  obey  the  ten  command- 
ments, attend  church  and  outwardly  conform."  Letter  to  Metsch,  Aug.  26,  1529. 
De  Wette,  3:  498. 


SPEYER  AND  THE  PROTEST  295 

ually,  does  not  believe  in  the  Christian  Church,  and  not  only  condemns 
the  entire  Christian  Church  as  an  accursed  heretic,  but  condemns  even 
Christ  himself,  with  all  the  Apostles  who  established  that  article  of  the 
Church  and  corroborated  it,  and  that  beyond  contradiction."  1  "If 
any  teach  against  a  public  article  of  faith  which  is  clearly  founded  upon 
the  Scriptures  and  is  believed  by  all  Christians  ...  for  instance,  if  any 
one  teach  that  Christ  is  not  God,  but  a  mere  man,  and  like  any  other 
prophet,  as  the  Turks  and  Anabaptists  (!)  hold,  such  a  person  is  not 
to  be  tolerated,  but  is  to  be  punished  for  profanity,  for  he  is  not  merely 
a  heretic  but  a  blasphemer."  2  Beginning  thus  by  denying  the  right  of 
any  to  reject  the  teaching  of  the  Scripture,  by  which  he  meant  his 
own  interpretation  of  Scripture,  he  developed  an  increasing  tendency 
to  identify  his  own  view  with  the  truth,  until  he  virtually  claimed  in- 
fallibility for  himself,  and  regarded  all  his  enemies  as  of  necessity  the 
enemies  of  God.  "Since  I  am  sure  of  it,"  he  says,  meaning  his  doctrine, 
"I  shall  through  it  be  your  judge  and  the  judge  of  angels,  as  St.  Paul 
says  (Gal.  1:  8),  so  that  he  who  does  not  embrace  my  doctrine  cannot 
be  saved.  For  it  is  God's  doctrine  and  not  my  own;  therefore  the  judg- 
ment, too,  is  God's  and  not  mine."  3 

And  if  we  grant  that  Luther  was,  as  he  came  to  think  himself,  God's 
mouthpiece,  there  might  follow  an  excellent  justification  of  using  force  to 
repress  contrary  teaching.  Especially  if  one  looked  to  the  Old  Testa- 
ment and  not  to  the  New  for  precedents  as  to  the  treatment  of  false 
prophets  and  teachers  of  idolatry.  "Not  that  we  should  kill  the 
preacher,"  says  Luther,  lacking  to  some  degree  the  courage  of  his  logic; 
"this  is  unnecessary.  But  they  should  be  forbidden  to  do  anything 
apart  from  and  against  the  Gospel,  and  should  be  prevented  by  force 
from  doing  it."  4  In  the  end  he  seems  to  have  counseled  the  utmost 
severity  in  some  cases:  "If  they  [the  priests]  continue  their  mad  ravings, 
it  seems  to  me  that  there  would  be  no  better  method  and  medicine  to 
stay  them  than  that  kings  and  princes  did  so  with  force,  armed  them- 
selves and  attacked  these  pernicious  people  who  poison  all  the  world, 
and  once  for  all  did  make  an  end  of  their  doings  with  weapons  and  not 
with  words.  For  even  as  we  punish  thieves  with  the  sword,  murderers 
with  the  rope,  and  heretics  with  fire,  wherefore  do  we  not  lay  hands 
on  these  pernicious  teachers  of  damnation,  on  popes,  on  cardinals,  bishops, 
and  the  swarm  of  the  Roman  Sodom,  yea,  with  every  weapon  that  lies 
within  our  reach,  and  wherefore  do  we  not  wash  our  hands  in  their 

i  Letter  to  Duke  Albert  of  Prussia,  April  (?),  1532,  De  Wette,  4:  349-355,  esp.  354. 
*LDS,  39:  250. 

»  Wieder  den  falsch  gennanten  geistlichen  Stand  des  Papstes  und  der  Bischtiffe. 
LDS,  28:  141-201,  esp.  144. 
*LDS,  22:49. 


296  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

blood?"  x  But  it  is  more  charitable  to  conclude  that  this  does  not  really 
mean  what  the  letter  of  such  sayings  conveys — that  this  was  an  outbreak 
of  ill-temper,  unfortunately  not  uncommon  with  Luther,  who  when 
angry  wrote  whatever  came  into  his  mind  without  the  least  restraint. 
Hence  it  is  easier  to  convict  him  of  apparent  inconsistency  than  any 
other  man  of  his  age;  and  it  is  above  all  things  necessary,  not  merely 
to  avoid  doing  him  injustice,  but  to  a  real  understanding  of  what  he 
thought  and  meant,  to  strike  an  average  of  his  sayings  on  any  question 
in  which  his  feelings  were  enlisted.  Probably  the  times  demanded  a 
leader,  who,  once  having  decided  his  course,  would  pursue  it  with  un- 
varying confidence  in  himself  and  his  conclusions,  as  well  as  with  a 
certain  brutal  vigor;  at  any  rate,  needed  or  not,  Luther  was  that  sort 
of  leader.2 

Protestant  and  Catholic,  both  then  and  later,  did  not  fail  to  make 
the  most  of  this  inconsistency  in  the  teaching  of  Luther  and  the  conduct 
of  the  Lutherans — 

A  quiet  conscience  makes  one  so  serene! 
Christians  have  burnt  each  other,  quite  persuaded 
That  all  the  Apostles  would  have  done  as  they  did!3 

The  second  stage  of  the  Reformation  decided  that  there  was  to  be  no 
greater  religious  freedom  than  before,  that  there  was  to  be  an  increase 
of  toleration  only  as  regarded  rulers.  Men's  consciences  were  still  to 
be  dominated  by  authority;  the  only  change  was  the  transference  of 

1  Quoted  by  Bax,  "German  Society  of  the  Middle  Ages,"  London,  1894,  p.  188; 
a  quotation  that  I  have  been  unable  to  locate  in  Luther's  writings,  but  seemingly 
genuine. 

2  Luther's   ideas   regarding   persecution   were   intimately    connected    with   his 
doctrine  concerning  the  nature  of  civil  government,  and  we  may  discover  a  like 
progression  in  his  modification  of  both  sorts  of  teachings.     We  must  also  dis- 
tinguish between  his  teaching  and  his  practice;  for,  however  zealously  he  preached 
obedience  to  authority,  the  only  prince  to  whom  he  ever  showed  the  least  defer- 
ence, or  even  ordinary  respect,  was  the  one  to  whom  he  owed  his  stipend.     Be- 
ginning with  the  unqualified  declaration  that  all  subjects  should  obey  their  rulers, 
and  might  not  resist  them  in  any  case,  he  had  by  1531  been  convinced  that  re- 
sistance was  in  some  cases  justifiable  and  advised  his  fellow  Germans  to  prepare 
for  defense  against  the  Emperor  (LDS,  25:  1-51).     In  1528  he  writes  to  Link, 
"I  am  by  no  means  able  to  admit  that  false  teachers  should  be  put  to  death;  it  is 
sufficient  that  they  be  banished"  (De  Wette,  3:  348).     A  year  later  he  has  ad- 
vanced somewhat;  men  should  be  constrained  to  conform  to  the  lawful  religion: 
"Wherever  possible,  no  discordant  doctrine  should  be  tolerated  under  the  same 
authority,  in  order  to  prevent  further  trouble.     Though  they  do  not  believe,  let 
them  for  the  sake  of  the  ten  commandments  be  driven  to  the  sermon."     (De 
Wette,  3:  498.)      Melanchthon,  who   has   long    borne  a   reputation  for  greater 
mildness  than  Luther,  outran  him  in  this  matter.    In  1530  he  wrote  to  Myconius 
advocating  the  punishment   of  Anabaptists   as   seditious    or    blasphemous   and 
urges  for  this  course  the  example  of  Moses  in  the  law  and  the  conduct  of  the 
Emperors  who  punished  Arians  with  the  sword  (CR,  2:  17).    In  1541  he  wrote  for 
the  Elector  a  paper  in  answer  to  the  question  "Whether  Anabaptists  might  be 
punished  by  the  sword,"  affirming  and  elaborating  reasons  in  support  of  his  view. 
To  this  Luther  appended  his  approval,   Placet  mihi  Martina  Luthero.     (CR,  4:. 
737—740.) 

3  Byron,  "Don  Juan,"  1:  Ixxxiii. 


SPEYER  AND  THE  PROTEST  297 

authority.  Instead  of  one  Pope,  Germany  now  had  three  hundred 
popelets.  But,  as  before,  each  man  must  believe  and  practice  what  he 
was  commanded — and  refusal  was  still  at  peril  of  liberty,  goods  and 
life — but  he  received  his  commands  from  the  ruler  to  whom  he 
paid  his  taxes,  not  from  Rome.  Men  had  striven  for  freedom,  they 
had  risked  life  and  had  been  ready  to  shed  blood  to  obtain  it,  and  they 
had  accomplished — what?  A  change  of  masters. 

Some  may  think  that  too  much  has  been  made  of  the  words  of  Luther, 
that  the  importance  of  his  sentiments  has  been  exaggerated.  But  it 
is  quite  impossible  to  overestimate  the  significance  of  whatever  he  said, 
on  this  and  other  subjects.  Circumstances  had  made  him  the  leader, 
his  own  genius  made  him  the  voice  of  a  great  movement.  Single  sen- 
tences may  no  doubt  be  culled  from  his  writings  that  represent  nobody 
but  Luther;  but  any  persistent  opinion,  any  determined  policy,  to  which 
he  gave  audible  or  written  expression,  becomes  part  of  the  movement. 
Sometimes  his  opinion  or  policy  we  find  willingly  accepted,  in  other 
cases  he  imposed  his  view  on  his  party  by  his  overmastering  personality 
and  imperious  will.  And  after  all,  as  regards  religious  liberty,  the  es- 
sential thing  to  be  remembered  is,  not  the  inconsistencies  of  Luther  and 
the  princes,  but  the  fact  that  at  Speyer  in  their  historic  protest,  they 
had  emphatically  asserted  the  right  of  liberty  for  themselves  and  the 
principles  on  which  the  rights  of  others  must  ultimately  rest:  the  in- 
violability of  conscience  and  the  supremacy  of  the  Scriptures.  For 
that  the  world  owes  a  debt  of  gratitude  to  the  signers  of  the  Protest, 
which  it  should  not  neglect  to  pay  because  they  imperfectly  understood 
their  principles  and  only  partially  did  the  work  to  which  they  set  them- 
selves. Only  time  was  necessary  to  rectify  their  error,  and  in  consequence 
to  make  their  achievement  shine  the  more  brightly. 

The  Protest  was  not  well  received  by  the  Diet;  the  reading  of  it  was 
barely  permitted,  and  the  majority  at  once  declared  it  to  be  invalid. 
The  recess  was  passed  despite  the  Protest,  and  the  Diet  adjourned  with 
further  innovations  in  religion  prohibited  by  the  law  of  the  Empire, 
with  good  prospect  that  another  year  would  see  those  already  made 
called  in  question  and  an  attempt  to  suppress  the  Reformation  by  force. 
A  deputation  from  the  Protestants  was  sent  to  the  Emperor,  to  present 
their  cause  to  him  in  person,1  but  he  refused  the  messengers  a  hearing 
at  Piacenza  in  September,  and  even  kept  them  prisoners  for  a  tune. 
It  was  evident  that  the  adherents  of  reform  had  only  the  worst  to  ex- 
pect from  Charles.  Nothing  but  the  occurrence  of  the  long  threatened 
incursion  of  the  Turks  gave  them  a  respite  and  prevented  the  immediate 
application  of  forcible  repression.  With  the  largest  army  that  had  ever 

1  Walch,  16:  452  seq. 


298  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

been  seen  on  the  Danube,  Suleiman  marched  to  the  walls  of  Vienna 
and  laid  siege  to  the  city.  The  summer  of  1529  was  an  anxious  time  for 
Germany,  and  indeed  for  all  Europe,  for  if  Vienna  fell  there  was  no 
telling  how  far  the  victorious  arms  of  the  Turk  might  be  carried.  Not 
since  the  defeat  of  Abderrahman  and  his  host  on  the  field  of  Tours  had 
Western  civilization  been  so  menaced,  and  the  nations  looked  with 
bated  breath  at  the  contest  carried  on  under  the  walls  of  Vienna.  The 
city  was  defended  with  heroic  and  even  desperate  valor,  and  with  such 
success  that,  though  he  suffered  defeat  in  no  pitched  battle,  the  Sultan 
was  forced  to  raise  the  siege,  October  14th,  and  retire  to  his  own  domains, 
hi  tacit  confession  of  the  failure  of  his  campaign.  Never  again  was 
the  West  to  be  in  serious  danger  from  the  Turk. 


PART  III 

FROM  THE  PROTEST  TO  THE  PEACE  OF  AUGSBURG 

1529-1555 


CHAPTER  I 

THE  COLLOQUY  AT  MARBURG  AND  THE  DIVISION  OF  THE  REFORMERS 

PHILIP,  Landgrave  of  Hesse,  was  the  ablest  political  leader  that  the 
Reformation  developed  in  Germany.  His  education  was  of  the  slightest, 
and  his  moral  and  religious  training  had  been  quite  neglected  hi  his 
youth.  His  native  abilities  were  only  moderate,  but  his  environment 
tended  to  develop  these  nearly  to  the  limit  of  capacity.  From  the  be- 
ginning of  his  reign  he  showed  not  only  a  desire  to  increase  his  authority 
and  influence,  but  a  shrewd  appreciation  of  the  means  by  which  this 
might  best  be  accomplished.  His  aptitude  for  public  affairs  grew  with 
experience,  until  he  became  something  very  like  a  statesman.  On  the 
whole,  in  spite  of  a  certain  restlessness  or  fickleness  of  temperament, 
which  sometimes  led  him  into  hasty  and  ill-advised  action,  he  is  en- 
titled to  the  praise  of  penetration  and  constancy.  Though  he  was  some- 
thing of  a  poltroon,  his  surname  of  the  Magnanimous  was  not  wholly 
the  flattery  of  courtiers.  Those  defects  of  private  character,  that  after- 
wards became  so  great  a  public  scandal  to  the  Reformation  cause, 
were  little  known  in  these  critical  years  of  the  struggle,  and  never  greatly 
affected  his  conduct  as  ruler. 

Alone  among  the  princes  of  Germany,  Philip  had  the  intelligence 
to  perceive  what  the  exigency  of  the  times  clearly  demanded,  and  the 
initiative  to  attempt  the  enterprise.  It  was  as  obvious  to  him  then 
as  it  is  now  to  us  that  the  only  chance  of  the  Protestants  to  maintain 
what  they  had  won,  to  say  nothing  of  extending  the  reform  further, 
was  in  their  union.  If  they  would  stand  heartily  and  loyally  together 
and  present  an  undaunted  front  to  Charles  and  the  Catholic  princes, 
they  would  be  too  formidable  a  party  to  be  attacked,  and  the  Emperor 
was  too  shrewd  a  statesman  and  captain  to  attempt  force  against  such 
a  combination.  But  if  they  were  disunited  and  at  odds  among  them- 
selves, the  Emperor  could  easily  beat  them  in  detail. 

As  Philip  was  the  only  one  of  his  party  who  did  see  this  clearly,  so 
from  the  first  he  bestirred  himself  actively  to  unite  the  reforming  States 
in  a  defensive  league.  Even  before  the  first  Diet  of  Speyer,  he  had  in- 
induced  the  Elector  of  Saxony  to  meet  him,  ostensibly  on  a  hunting- 
party  at  the  lodge  of  Friedewalde,  in  the  Solinger  forest;  and  here,  on 
November  7,  1525,  they  settled  the  preliminaries  of  an  alliance.  In 
the  following  February  they  again  exchanged  pledges  of  mutual  support, 

301 


302  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

should  either  be  attacked  on  account  of  innovations  in  religion.  These 
informal  stipulations  were  reduced  to  writing  and  formally  ratified  at 
a  meeting  at  Torgau,  May  2,  1526.1  Not  satisfied  with  this,  Philip  busied 
himself  with  enlisting  the  cooperation  of  the  other  princes  who  had 
favored  the  Lutheran  movement,  with  the  result  that  the  princes  of 
Brunswick,  Ltineberg,  Mecklenburg,  Anhalt  and  Mansfeld  joined  the 
league  of  Torgau  June  12th  following; 2  the  city  of  Magdeburg  gave  its 
assent  June  25th; 3  and  Margrave  George  of  Brandenburg  joined 
September  29th.4  It  was  in  great  part  due  to  the  firm  front  that  the 
Lutherans  were  thus  enabled  to  present  to  their  adversaries  at  the  first 
Diet  of  Speyer  that  the  tolerant  decree  of  1526  was  enacted. 

The  lesson  was  not  wholly  lost  on  the  princes,  stolid  and  incapable 
as  they  were,  and  the  proceedings  at  the  second  Diet  of  Speyer  were 
well  adapted  to  enforce  the  need  of  union.  Before  the  ink  of  their  sig- 
natures to  the  Protest  was  well  dried,  Landgrave  Philip  had  with  little 
difficulty  persuaded  them  to  agree  to  the  formation  of  a  new  league  for 
mutual  protection.  This  would  enlarge  the  league  of  Torgau  by  the 
admission  of  the  free  cities  whose  representatives  had  signed,  especially 
the  towns  of  Niirnberg,  Ulm,  Strassburg  and  St.  Gall.  This  agreement 
was  secret  and  informal,  the  exact  terms  of  the  treaty  being  left  to  sub- 
sequent determination  and  ratification.  It  would  have  been  com- 
paratively easy  to  extend  this  league  and  secure  the  adhesion  of  at  least 
the  other  signatories  of  the  Protest,  but  for  one  obstacle  that  wrecked 
the  whole  promising  scheme.  The  name  of  that  obstacle  was  Martin 
Luther. 

The  initiative  in  the  matter  of  defeating  the  project  was,  however, 
taken  by  Melanchthon,  who  at  Speyer  first  manifested  that  inveterate  ten- 
dency of  his  to  trim  and  compromise  that  so  nearly  wrecked  the  Reforma- 
tion movement  at  several  crises  in  its  progress.  He  was  of  opinion 
that  none  should  have  been  allowed  to  sign  the  Protest  but  pure  Luther- 
ans; that  their  cause  had  been  seriously  compromised  by  connection  with 
those  who  had  different  notions  of  reform;  that,  but  for  such  connection, 
the  Romanists  would  have  offered  better  terms  at  Speyer;  and  that,  if 
the  connection  were  completely  broken  off,  better  terms  were  yet  ob- 
tainable. Melanchthon  had  not  yet  reconciled  himself  to  the  idea  of 
schism;  he  was  still  deluding  himself  into  the  belief  that  reunion  with 
Rome  was  both  desirable  and  possible.  Luther  had  no  such  illusions  about 
reunion  and  was  not  at  all  frightened  by  the  bogey  of  schism,  but  he 
was  even  less  tolerant  than  Melanchthon  of  any  deviation  from  the 

1  Walch,  16:  439-443. 
2Walch,  16:  444. 

3  Walch,  16:  445. 

4  Walch,  16:  448. 


DIVISION  OF  THE  REFORMERS  303 

Wittenberg  type  of  reform,  and  he  lent  a  willing  ear  to  the  complaints 
that  his  colleague  brought  back  from  Speyer.  Melanchthon,  if  we  may 
take  at  their  full  value  his  assurances  to  his  friends,  was  very  much 
disturbed  in  mind — distracted  would  be  hardly  too  strong  a  word  to 
describe  his  mental  state.  "My  conscience  is  disquieted  about  it,"  he 
writes  to  one  friend;  "I  have  been  so  much  disturbed  that  in  these  first 
days  I  have  been  almost  dead;  all  the  pains  of  hell  gat  hold  upon  me."  1 
To  another  he  writes  that  the  matter  had  caused  him  "  to  neglect  all  the 
duties  of  friendship  and  all  his  studies,"  2  while  to  a  third  he  declared,  "I 
would  rather  die  than  that  our  cause  should  be  contaminated  by  asso- 
ciation with  the  Zwinglians."  3  This  from  the  "mild"  Melanchthon! 

To  communicate  such  sentiments  as  these  to  Luther  was  applying  a 
spark  to  tinder — the  reformer  kindled  at  once  and  wrote  an  earnest  letter 
to  the  Elector  of  Saxony,  warning  him  against  any  such  alliance.  Such 
a  league,  he  said,  is  not  of  God,  nor  does  it  proceed  from  confidence  in 
God,  but  from  human  conceit;  it  trusts  in  human  help  alone  and  can 
have  no  good  results;  moreover,  it  is  unnecessary,  for  the  Romanists  have 
not  the  strength  or  the  courage  to  do  anything;  besides,  it  is  making  a 
league  with  the  enemies  of  God  and  the  sacrament,  and  that  is  the  way 
of  damnation  for  body  and  soul.4  This  is  one  of  Luther's  most  self- 
illuminating  letters,  and  among  other  things  discloses  his  complete 
incapacity  for  public  affairs,  united,  as  is  frequently  the  case,  with 
the  complacent  conviction  that  this  is  really  his  strong  point. 

The  Elector  was  probably  shaken  by  this  letter,  but  not  yet  fully 
convinced;  he  had  pledged  his  word  to  Philip  and  did  not  at  once  see 
his  way  to  honorable  withdrawal.  He  accordingly  took  a  middle  course^ 
the  expedient  of  all  weak  natures  in  an  emergency,  and  instead  of  at^ 
tending  in  person  the  conference  at  Rodach,  at  which  the  formal  treaty 
was  to  be  drawn  up,  sent  his  chancellor  with  stringent  instructions  not 
to  conclude  a  final  agreement,  or  give  even  a  provisional  assent  to  an 
alliance  other  than  defensive,  in  case  any  one  were  attacked  "on  account 
of  the  faith  and  on  account  of  the  things  that  are  dependent  on  and 
follow  from  the  articles  to  be  treated  in  a  future  council."  6  These 
instructions  were  almost  verbally  embodied  in  the  Confederations-Notel, 
completed  June  7th,  and  signed  by  the  representatives  of  Saxony,  Bran- 
denburg, Hesse,  Strassburg,  Niirnberg  and  Ulm.6  In  the  meantime; 

i  To  Camerarius,  CR,  1 :  1067. 

»  To  Justus  Jonas,  CR,  1075. 

»  To  Baumgarten,  CR,  1 :  1076. 

«  De  Wette,  3 :  454.  Not  in  Currie.  The  cleverness  with  which  that  collec- 
tion has  avoided  the  significant  letters  and  included  the  trivial  and  worthless 
amounts  almost  to  genius. 

*  Document  first  published  by  von  Schubert  in  ZKG,  29:  3,  p.  382, 

«  Walch,  16:  522. 


304  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

Luther  had  drawn  up  and  submitted  to  his  colleagues  at  Wittenberg  a 
more  formal  opinion  against  such  a  league;  and,  having  secured  their 
approval,  towards  the  end  of  May  had  forwarded  it  to  the  Elector.1 
As  before,  he  states  two  main  objections:  first,  such  a  league  is  trusting 
in  the  arm  of  flesh,  not  in  God;  second,  any  league  must  unquestionably 
be  founded  on  the  conscience  or  faith  of  those  who  form  it.  To  unite 
with  heretics  is  to  strengthen  heresy;  the  whole  nation  might  in  that 
case  suffer,  as  for  the  sin  of  Achan. 

The  result  of  Luther's  activity  in  opposition  was  to  induce  the  Elector 
to  decline  to  ratify  the  articles  of  Rodach.  Melanchthon's  remonstrances 
to  his  friends  in  Niirnberg  seem  to  have  produced  a  decided  coolness  in 
that  quarter  also.  In  short,  Philip  of  Hesse  soon  found  himself  practically 
solitary  in  his  advocacy  of  a  policy  of  political  union  among  the  reforming 
States  of  the  Empire.  His  real  project  was  larger  than  this,  larger  than 
anything  that  he  had  been  bold  enough  to  avow:  nothing  less,  indeed, 
than  a  union  of  all  the  Protestant  forces,  outside  the  Empire  as  well 
as  within.  And,  in  spite  of  the  severe  check  he  had  received,  he  was  as 
yet  far  from  despairing  of  ultimate  success;  the  need  of  unity  was  so 
urgent,  and  to  him  so  evident,  that  he  could  not  understand  how  any  could 
fail  in  the  end  to  see  it.  At  any  rate,  since  it  was  clear  to  him  that  union 
was  the  indispensable  condition  of  the  peaceable  progress  of  reformation, 
and  might  easily  prove  to  be  vital  to  the  very  existence  of  Protestantism, 
he  continued  to  agitate  for  it  with  great  zeal  and  some  intelligence. 

Philip's  conversion,  such  as  it  was,  had  been  due  rather  to  his  reading 
of  Luther's  German  Bible  than  to  the  reformer's  other  works.  While 
he  admired  the  Wittenberg  leader,  he  was  not  a  slavish  follower.  He 
developed  a  keen  interest  in  theological  discussion,  and,  as  differences 
began  to  develop  among  the  reformers,  took  a  line  of  his  own.  On  the 
whole,  he  showed  a  decided  bent  toward  the  teachings  of  Zwingli, 
though  no  more  inclined  to  unquestioning  acceptance  of  his  views  than 
of  Luther's.  Zwingli's  work  at  Zurich  not  only  had  an  origin  quite 
independent  of  Luther's  at  Wittenberg,  but  had  gone  upon  strikingly 
different  principles.  The  Swiss  Reformation  was  based  more  thoroughly 
than  the  German  on  the  study  and  public  exposition  of  the  Scriptures, 
by  which  the  citizens  of  Zurich  through  a  series  of  years  had  been  care- 
fully taught  the  Gospel  and  had  come  fully  to  appreciate  how  far  the 
Roman  Church  had  departed  from  primitive  Christianity.  The  revolt 
from  the  Church  was  begun  by  the  people,  not  by  Zwingli.  Luther  from 
the  first  led  and  directed  the  work  at  Wittenberg;  Zwingli  for  some  time 
followed  rather  than  led  the  citizens  of  Zurich. 

Switzerland  was  then  the  most  democratic  country  in  Europe— 

i  Walch,  16:  518;  De  Wette,  3:  465. 


DIVISION  OF  THE  REFORMERS  305 

the  only  country  in  the  sixteenth  century  with  any  pretensions  to  democ- 
racy— and  it  was  unavoidable  that  the  Reformation,  once  begun  there, 
should  be  radical  and  thorough.  Zwingli  avowed  as  a  guiding  prin- 
ciple that  nothing  of  the  ancient  Catholic  doctrine  and  usages  was  to 
be  retained  for  which  clear  authority  could  not  be  found  in  Scripture; 
and  though  he  was  compelled  to  strain  the  principle  at  times,  to  make 
it  cover  the  actual  policy  of  reform  adopted,  on  the  whole  he  adhered 
to  it  with  praiseworthy  consistency.  Luther,  on  the  other  hand,  avowed 
that  nothing  of  the  Catholic  doctrine  and  usages  should  be  abandoned, 
save  that  which  was  clearly  contrary  to  Scripture — "what  is  not  against 
Scripture  is  for  Scripture,  and  Scripture  for  it."  ^Principles  so  funda- 
mentally different  could  not  fail  to  lead  to  wide  variance  in  practice, 
and  perhaps  this  was  nowhere  so  apparent  as  in  the  systems  of  worship 
established.  In  the  Lutheran  churches,  many  of  the  crosses,  altar  pic- 
tures and  emblems  were  retained,  and  are  to  be  seen  there  to  this  day; 
the  altar  and  its  candles  were  practically  unchanged;  an  elaborate  liturgy 
and  hymnology  were  instituted.  In  the  Swiss  churches,  a  clean  sweep 
was  made  of  all  " idolatrous"  emblems,  and  the  walls  were  whitewashed; 
the  altars  were  removed  and  plain  communion  tables  took  their  place ; 
the  worship  was  severely  simple,  with  almost  no  ritual,  and  the  sermon 
was  made  the  central  feature  of  divine  service. 

The  different  political  conditions  in  which  the  two  men  found  them- 
selves was  reflected  in  their  work  as  reformers.  Zwingli  was  bred  in  an 
atmosphere  of  equal  rights  and  duties,  an  atmosphere  of  liberty,  of 
patriotism,  exalted  to  be  a  part  of  religion.  He  was  by  instinct  as  much 
patriot  as  reformer,  as  interested  in  civil  affairs  as  in  ecclesiastical,  and 
from  early  manhood  had  been  accustomed  to  take  personal  part  in 
both.  The  constitution  of  Zurich  also  played  an  important  part  in  his 
reforms.  As  Luther  felt  himself  compelled  to  appeal  to  the  German 
princes  and  rely  on  their  power,  in  order  to  give  practical  effect  to  his 
teachings,  Zwingli  was  constrained  by  other  conditions  to  rely  upon  the 
town  councils  and  the  burgomaster  for  the  practical  side  of  his  reforms. 
A  different  institutional  form  of  the  Swiss  work  from  that  found  in 
Germany  was  the  logical  consequence,  and  this  could  not  have  been 
avoided  even  if  there  had  been  complete  agreement  in  principle  between 
Luther  and  Zwingli.  The  actual  divergence  in  principle,  of  course, 
gave  added  emphasis  to  the  institutional  differences. 

The  system  of  visitation  by  commissions,  consistorial  control,  and 
the  like,  gradually  worked  out  in  the  German  principalities,  was  a  logical 
deduction  from  the  assumption  and  exercise  of  episcopal  powers  by  the 
princes.  It  was  a  system  admirably  adapted  to  an  oligarchy,  but  in- 
tolerable in  a  democracy.  In  Zurich  therefore  the  city  government  as- 


306  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

sumed  the  episcopal  powers,  and  was  able  to  exercise  direct  supervision 
and  control  of  churches  and  preachers;  consequently  there  was  no  need 
of  consistories  or  commissions.  A  far  more  democratic  organization 
of  the  churches  was  demanded  in  Switzerland  than  would  probably 
have  been  possible  in  Germany,  where  the  people  had  no  experience 
in  self-government.  The  Swiss  institutions,  originating  in  a  city  and 
adapted  to  people  accustomed  to  govern  themselves,  were  better  fitted 
for  cities  generally  than  a  system  originating  under  an  oligarchy  and 
assuming  as  a  premise  that  the  congregation  were  totally  unable  to  manage 
their  own  affairs.  In  consequence,  the  Zurich  system  was  adopted  by 
many  of  the  towns  of  Southern  Germany,  which  were  near  at  hand  and 
could  observe  its  working — adopted  for  its  own  sake  as  an  ecclesiastical 
system,  quite  apart  from  the  doctrines  that  accompanied  it  in  the  city 
of  its  origin.  But  it  was  wholly  natural  that  the  doctrines  should  go 
with  the  institutions,  and  so  more  and  more  these  towns,  were  tending  to 
become  Zwinglian  in  theology,  as  well  as  Swiss  in  church  organization. 

To  complicate  the  situation  still  further,  in  1527  the  two  leaders  had 
been  drawn  into  a  personal  controversy,  which  had  continued  with  ever 
increasing  acrimony.  It  was  perhaps  to  have  been  anticipated  that 
sooner  or  later  they  should  fall  out,  for  they  were  men  of  antipathetic 
natures  and  irreconcilable  aims.  Zwingli  was  much  more  of  a  Humanist 
than  Luther,  and  though  both  were  of  peasant  birth  and  started  even 
in  the  race,  Zwingli  had  acquired  much  more  of  the  culture  and  polish 
and  courtesy  that  we  associate  to-day  with  the  term  "gentleman."  Both 
were  born  to  lead  rather  than  follow,  and  neither  was  tolerant  of 
opposition.  Luther  had  the  stronger  religious  nature,  and  had  passed 
through  a  deeper  religious  experience,  while  Zwingli  had  the  keener  and 
stronger  intellect.  Zwingli  was  all  but  a  rationalist,  Luther  was  quite 
a  mystic.  On  some  of  the  main  questions  of  the  Reformation  their 
agreement  was  not  merely  formal,  but  real  and  thorough:  each  held 
firmly  to  the  supremacy  of  the  Scriptures,  the  right  and  duty  of  individual 
interpretation  and  the  universal  priesthood  of  believers.  They  both 
held  the  theology  of  Augustine,  but  Zwingli  was  inclined  to  lay  chief 
emphasis  on  the  election  of  grace  as  the  fundamental  doctrine,  while 
Luther  declared  justification  by  faith  alone  to  be  the  article  of  a  standing 
or  falling  Church. 

The  origin  of  their  controversy  may  be  traced  to  Carlstadt,  who  in 
1524  published  a  tract  in  which  he  condemned  his  former  doctrine  of  the 
real  presence  in  the  eucharist,  and  maintained  that  the  bread  and  wine 
were  mere  symbols  of  Christ's  body  and  blood.  The  exegesis  by  which 
he  strove  to  prove  his  doctrine  was  puerile,  and  Luther  had  little  difficulty 
in  disposing  of  his  argument.  Others  took  the  matter  up,  however, 


DIVISION  OF  THE  REFORMERS  307 

of  whom  Zwingli  was  chief,  and  though  he  maintained  that  he  did  not 
derive  his  idea  from  Carlstadt,  and  was  perhaps  justified  in  such  as- 
sertion, the  question  is  of  trivial  importance :  the  thing  of  real  consequence 
is  that  he  agreed  with  Carlstadt,  though  he  supported  his  opinion  by 
a  different  and  much  better  exegesis.  Soon  after  publishing  his  new  view 
of  the  eucharist,  as  already  related,  Carlstadt  found  harborage  in  Basel, 
whence  he  continued  from  the  vantage-ground  of  a  university  chair, 
his  attacks  on  Luther's  doctrines  in  writings  long  since  forgotten.  It 
was  not  unnatural  that  Luther  suspected  Zwingli  to  have  been  influenced 
by  one  whom  he  had  come  to  look  upon  as  his  personal  enemy,  and  the 
enemy  of  the  Gospel  as  well.  The  giving  to  Carlstadt  of  succor  and  even 
honor  was  Luther's  first  grievance  against  the  Swiss,  and  he  never  for- 
gave it.  The  bitterness  thus  caused  may  be  traced  in  all  his  subsequent 
conduct. 

Luther  early  came  to  the  abandonment  of  the  Roman  doctrine  of 
transubstantiation — as  soon,  in  fact,  as  he  came  clearly  to  understand 
how  fully  it  depended  on  the  philosophy  of  Aristotle.  In  rejecting  Aris- 
totle as  a  master,  he  rejected  every  trace  of  the  Aristotelian  philosophy 
in  theology;  and  the  subtleties  that  the  schoolmen  had  spun  out  of  the 
distinction  between  the  " substance"  and  the  "accidents"  of  matter  he 
utterly  scorned.  He  argued  therefore  that  it  was  unnecessary  to  insist 
that  the  substance  of  the  bread  and  wine  are  changed  at  consecration 
into  the  substance*  of  Christ's  body  and  blood,  provided  the  reality 
of  Christ's  corporal  presence  in  the  bread  and  wine  was  maintained. 
Thus  in  1519  he  had  written,  "No  man  may  fear  being  guilty  of  heresy, 
if  he  believes  that  real  bread  and  "wine  are  present  on  the  altar.  ...  In 
the  sacrament  it  is  not  necessary  to  the  presence  of  the  real  body  and 
the  real  blood  that  the  bread  and  wine  should  be  transubstantiated,  so 
that  Christ  may  be  contained  beneath  the  accidents;  but  while  both 
bread  and  wine  continue  there,  it  can  be  said  with  truth,  'this  bread  is 
my  body,  this  wine  is  my  blood,'  and  conversely."  J 

But  Luther  accepted  as  literally  true  the  words  "This  is  my  body" 
and  "This  is  my  blood,"  and  resented  as  sacrilege  any  attempt  to  give 
them  other  than  this  literal  meaning.  It  has  always  seemed  to  one  of 
feeble  intellect  that  the  Lutheran  doctrine  is  more  difficult  to  believe 
than  the  Roman,  which  it  replaced.  The  Roman  doctrine  merely  re- 
quires one  to  believe  that  a  miracle  is  wrought,  and  if  your  faith  is  suffi- 
ciently robust  for  that,  there  you  are.  But  the  Lutheran  doctrine  requires 
one  to  believe  a  proposition  that  is  inconceivable  by  the  human  mind, 
viz.,  that  two  different  substances  can  occupy  the  same  space  at  the 
same  time,  so  that  the  real  Christ  who  has  been  exalted  at  the  right 

1  Babylonian  Captivity,  in  Wace  and  Bucheim,  pp.  156,  161. 


308  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

hand  of  God  is  corporally  received  in  and  with  the  bread  and  wine. 
Let  him  who  can,  believe  that  even  a  miracle  can  accomplish  the  in- 
conceivable— nobody  else  need  have  the  slightest  objection.  Luther 
got  over  this  difficulty  by  one  of  those  simple  expedients  possible  only 
to  a  great  mind:  he  declared  that  this  was  a  matter  to  which  spatial 
ideas  and  the  axioms  of  mathematics  do  not  apply.  But  again  a  feeble 
intellect  cannot  follow  him.  The  only  bodies  of  which  we  have  knowl- 
edge, the  only  bread  and  wine  of  our  experience,  occupy  a  certain  definite 
portion  of  space  and  therefore  are  subject  to  the  laws  of  mathematics. 

Zwingli,  on  the  other  hand,  understood  "This  is  my  body"  to  mean, 
This  signifies  my  body:  and  he  adduced  many  passages  of  Scripture 
that  must  obviously  be  explained  in  this  sense,  such  as  "I  am  the  vine" 
and  "That  rock  was  Christ."  In  his  view  the  bread  and  wine  are 
memorials  of  Christ's  body  and  blood,  not  the  true  substantial  body. 
He  did  not  deny,  but  rather  affirmed,  that  the  true  Christ  is  received 
by  the  believer  in  the  sacrament,  but  a  spiritual  Christ  who  is  spiritually 
received  through  the  believer's  faith,'  not  through  his  mouth.  And  he 
did  not  hesitate  to  show,  with  unsparing  pen,  the  inconsistencies  and 
absurdities  and  intellectual  impossibilities  contained  in  Luther's  doc- 
trine the  moment  its  grounds  are  examined.  It  comforts  one  not  a 
little  to  find  that  Zwingli's  intellect  was  also  feeble  in  this  particular, 
and  that  he  was  unable  to  follow  the  mental  processes  that  Luther 
fondly  persuaded  himself  were  reasoning. 

Though  Zwingli  substantially  agreed  with  Carlstadt  concerning  the 
eucharist,  he  probably  derived  his  view  from  another  source  and  cer- 
tainly advocated  it  on  different  grounds.  But  that  he  agreed  with 
Carlstadt  at  all  was  enough  to  make  Luther  his  enemy.  In  his  first 
writings  on  the  subject,  as  even  the  strong  partisans  of  the  Witten- 
berg leader  are  constrained  to  admit,  Zwingli  treated  his  opponent 
with  great  respect.  We  cannot  say  the  same  of  Luther.  In  his  tract, 
"That  the  Words  of  Christ:  'This  is  my  Body'  stand  fast,"  1  he  accuses 
Zwingli  of  having  derived  his  doctrine  from  the  devil.  "How  true 
it  is  that  the  devil  is  a  tausendkunstler,  a  myriad-minded  trickster.  He 
proves  this  powerfully  in  the  external  rule  of  this  world  by  bodily  lusts, 
tricks,  sins,  murder,  ruin,  etc.,  but  especially,  and  above  all  measure, 
in  spiritual  and  external  things  that  affect  God's  honor  and  our  con- 
science. How  he  can  turn  and  twist  and  throw  all  sorts  of  obstacles 
in  the  way,  to  prevent  men  from  being  saved  and  abiding  in  the  Christian 
truth."  The  rest  of  the  tract  keeps  the  promise  made  by  this  beginning; 
it  is  ill-tempered  and  abusive,  and  displays  on  every  page  an  intimate 
acquaintance  with  the  devil  and  his  works.  Indeed,  if  one  may  trust 

1  LDS,  30:  15  seq.    The  subtitle  is,  "Against  the  Fanatics"  (Schw&rmgeister) . 


DIVISION  OF  THE  REFORMERS  309 

the  evidence  of  his  polemic  writings,  Luther  knew  a  good  deal  more 
about  the  devil  than  he  did  about  God;  and  he  certainly  manifests 
more  of  a  Satanic  than  of  a  Christian  spirit.  Much  space  is  devoted 
in  this  tract  to  an  idea  that  thenceforth  became  characteristic  of  Lutheran 
doctrine:  the  ubiquity  of  Christ's  body.  Luther  was  as  little  successful 
in  proving  the  omnipresence  of  Christ's  glorified  body  as  Zwingli  on  his 
part  was  in  proving  a  spatial  inclusion  of  the  same  body  in  heaven — both 
resting  their  arguments  on  metaphysical  notions  regarding  a  glorified 
spiritual  body  of  which  we  know  absolutely  nothing,  and  about  which 
therefore  all  reasoning  is  a  mere  beating  of  the  air. 

Pamphlets  and  tracts  now  flew  thick  and  fast.  Bucer  and  Oekolam- 
padius,  Bugenhagen  and  Melanchthon,  took  part  in  the  fray.  All  but 
Luther  retained  some  semblance  of  restraint  and  decency,  but  he  became 
more  furious  each  time  he  took  pen  in  hand;  "venomous  adders,"  "lies 
and  nonsense,"  "emissaries  of  Satan,"  "heretic,"  "gross  fanatic," 
"devilish  disguise,"  are  a  few  choice  specimens  of  his  vocabulary.  As 
we  have  seen,  there  were  causes  other  than  theological  for  this  acerbity 
on  his  part,  and  no  doubt  the  most  influential  was  his  lately  growing 
sense  that  Zwingli  was  becoming  a  dangerous  rival  in  Germany.  Strass- 
burg,  Constance,  Memmingen,  Linden,  Ulm,  and  other  towns  hardly  less 
populous  and  influential  were  fast  becoming  open  adherents  of  the 
Swiss  leader.  So  long  as  Zwingli's  influence  was  confined  to  Switzer- 
land, Luther  had  little  complaint  to  make  of  him,  but  the  moment  he 
began  to  divide  the  support  of  Germany  the  discovery  was  quickly 
made  that  he  was  a  dangerous  heretic  and  an  emissary  of  the  devil. 
Luther  could  never  tolerate  a  rival.  Then,  too,  the  democratic  spirit 
of  Switzerland  was  distasteful  to  one  who  was  coming  more  and  more 
to  distrust  the  common  man  and  to  side  with  the  princes  as  the  hope 
of  Germany.  In  the  late  uprising  of  the  peasants,  the  Swiss  people 
had  shown  too  much  sympathy  with  the  rebels  and  had  given  too  little 
assistance  in  subduing  the  revolt,  to  please  either  the  princes  or  Luther. 
The  gravitation  of  the  Southern  towns  toward  the  Swiss  might  result 
in  a  permanent  league  with  them,  to  the  weakening  of  the  Empire. 
Luther's  genuine  love  for  the  fatherland  filled  him  with  alarm  as  he 
contemplated  this  possibility,  and  prejudiced  him  against  the  Swiss. 

Philip  of  Hesse  was  disappointed  but  not  disheartened  by  the  failure 
of  his  attempt  at  Speyer  to  bring  the  Protestants  together,  yet  he  did 
not  abandon  hope  of  ultimate  success.  He  was  more  convinced 
than  ever  that  in  such  unity  was  their  only  rational  hope  of  safety — 
a  fact  that  Luther  must  also  have  seen  if  he  had  not  been  blinded  by 
religious  bigotry  and  personal  rancor.  After  a  prolonged  correspondence 
to  arrange  terms,  Philip  invited  both  the  German  and  Swiss  leaders 


310  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

to  a  conference,  with  the  idea  that  such  a  meeting  might  result  in  a 
better  understanding  and  a  consequent  removal  of  the  obstacles  to  an 
alliance.  Philip's  scheme  was  so  plainly  good  politics,  not  to  say  the 
only  politics,  that  he  failed  to  comprehend  and  correctly  estimate  the 
personal  and  theological  differences  between  the  two  Protestant  groups. 
The  theological  differences,  in  particular,  appeared  to  him  a  mere  battle 
of  words;  which  may  have  been  true,  but  he  had  yet  to  learn  how  stubborn 
things  words  may  sometimes  be. 

The  projected  conference  narrowly  escaped  failure  because  of  the 
unwillingness  of  the  Wittenberg  leaders  to  take  part  in  it;  they  finally 
consented,  more  to  oblige  the  Elector  of  Saxony  and  Philip  than  be- 
cause they  expected  any  good  from  it.  They  did  not  wish  to  meet  Zwingli, 
and  thought  if  there  were  to  be  a  conference  it  would  be  better  to  invite 
only  Oekolampadius.  Melanchthon  even  urged  that  some  learned 
Romanists  should  be  invited,  but  Philip  very  properly  paid  no  heed 
to  this  absurd  suggestion.1  Zwingli,  on  the  contrary,  was  eager  for  the 
meeting,  so  much  so  that  he  came  to  it  without  obtaining  formal  leave 
from  the  Zurich  council,  who  feared  for  the  safety  of  his  person.  The 
Swiss  leader  was  in  full  sympathy  with  Philip's  plan,  and  was  even  more 
sanguine  of  success  than  the  Landgrave.  The  opposition  of  the  Forest 
Cantons  to  the  reform  in  Switzerland  was  pressing  him  hard,  and  the 
urgent  need  of  an  alliance  between  all  Protestants  was  to  his  mind 
very  plain. 

Of  all  the  services  of  Philip  to  the  cause  of  reform  thus  far  rendered, 
none  had  been  of  greater  worth  than  the  founding  of  the  university 
of  Marburg.  This  institution,  dedicated  equally  to  the  progress  of 
learning  and  the  training  of  a  Protestant  clergy,  opened  its  doors  on 
July  1,  1527,  with  104  students.  It  seems  to  have  been  the  Landgrave's 
first  design  to  have  the  debate  take  place  under  the  auspices  of  the 
university,  but  when  the  time  came  the  meeting  was  actually  held  in 
the  Rittersaal,  or  hall  of  knights,  in  the  prince's  castle.  This  quaint, 
rambling  old  building,  perched  on  a  lofty  crag  overlooking  the  beautiful 
and  fertile  valley  of  the  Lahn,  is  still  occasionally  the  residence  of  the 
German  Emperors,  and  is  one  of  the  most  interesting  pilgrimage  places 
of  the  Reformation  period.  The  colloquy  continued  four  days,  including 
not  only  public  debates  but  several  private  conferences.  The  main 

1  Luther  had  this  idea  also.  The  temper  in  which  he  came  to  Marburg  may  be 
judged  from  his  letter  to  Brenz,  Aug.  29:  "Nothing  good  is  likely  to  ensue  from 
such  a  hole-and-corner  coming  together  of  the  churches  of  God.  Therefore  I 
beg  of  you  not  to  appear,  and,  if  you  have  not  promised  to  go,  remain  away. 
At  first  we  absolutely  refused,  but  as  this  young  Hessian  Alexander  so  worried 
our  princes,  we  had  to  promise,  but  persisted  it  would  result  in  no  good,  and  only 
make  matters  worse.  But  he  stuck  to  his  point,  so  we  yielded.  If  he  would  also 
invite  some  talented  Papists,  who  could  bear  witness  against  these  boasters  and 
remarkable  saints  who  are  to  be  there!"  Currie,  196;  De  Wette,  3:  501. 


DIVISION  OF  THE  REFORMERS  311 

discussions  were  on  Friday  and  Saturday,  October  1  and  2.  On  the 
Lutheran  side  were  not  only  Luther  and  Melanchthon,  but  Jonas  and 
Cruciger  of  Wittenberg,  Myconius  of  Gotha,  Osiander  of  Niirnberg, 
Agricola  of  Augsburg,  and  Brenz  of  Swabian  Hall.  Zwingli  had  as 
his  supporters,  besides  his  closest  friend,  Oekolampadius,  Bucer  and 
Hedio  of  Strassburg.  A  number  of  other  invited  guests,  noblemen  and 
scholars,  were  auditors — Zwingli  says  twenty-four,  while  Brenz  speaks 
vaguely  of  fifty  or  sixty.  Zwingli  desired  the  debate  to  take  place  in 
Latin,  and  an  official  record  to  be  made  by  a  secretary.  Luther  refused 
to  consent  to  the  latter,  and  in  deference  to  the  guests  it  was  decided 
to  use  the  German  language,  as  the  only  one  known  to  many.  This 
placed  Zwingli  at  a  disadvantage,  as  his  Swiss  dialect  could  be  under- 
stood with  difficulty. 

Luther  began  the  conference  with  the  declaration  that  he  would 
never  change  in  the  least  his  doctrine  of  the  real  presence,  and,  taking 
a  piece  of  chalk,  wrote  on  the  table  in  large  letters  HOC  EST  CORPUS 
MEUM,  by  which  he  asserted  his  determination  to  stand  or  fall. 
Throughout  he  showed  himself  impervious  to  reason,  determined  simply 
to  maintain  his  own  opinion,  no  matter  what  might  be  said.  At  one 
stage  the  Landgrave  interposed  to  rebuke  Luther  for  his  violence  and 
quickness  to  take  offense  at  innocent  remarks  of  Zwingli.  Later,  when 
feeling  ran  high,  the  prince  again  interposed  and  exhorted  the  disputants 
to  try  to  come  to  some  understanding.  Luther  made  this  characteristic 
response,  "There  is  only  one  way  to  that:  Let  our  adversaries  believe 
as  we  do."  When  the  Swiss  responded,  "We  cannot,"  Luther  closed 
the  discussion  with  the  words,  "Well,  then,  I  abandon  you  to  God's 
judgment." 

On  Monday,  the  Landgrave  made  a  last  attempt  and  brought  Luther 
and  Zwingli  together  in  private  conference.  With  tears  in  his  eyes 
Zwingli  approached  Luther  and  held  out  the  hand  of  brotherhood, 
but  Luther  curtly  refused  to  take  it,  saying,  "Yours  is  a  different  spirit 
from  ours."  1  How  truly  he  spoke  he  was  not  conscious.  Zwingli  showed 
the  spirit  of  Christ.  But  even  Melanchthon  thought  this  a  strange  in- 
consistency in  the  Swiss,  that  he  should  wish  to  be  accounted  a  brother 

1  In  his  letter  to  Agricola,  Luther  gives  an  account  that  does  not  tally  with 
that  of  eye-witnesses:  "At  the  close,  they  wished  that  we  would  acknowledge 
them  as  at  least  brethren,  and  the  prince  urged  the  same,  but  we  could  not  grant 
it  to  them;  nevertheless  we  gave  hands  of  peace  and  charity."  Melanchthon  adds  a 
postscript:  "See  their  folly:  while  they  condemn  us,  they  desire  notwithstanding 
to  be  considered  brethren  by  us."  De  Wette,  3:  513.  Neither  Luther  nor 
Melanchthon  could  understand,  what  is  fully  comprehensible  by  us,  that  the 
Zwinglians  could  differ  from  the  Wittenbergers  on  a  question  of  exegesis  and 
theology,  without  ceasing  to  cherish  brotherly  love  for  them.  In  1528  Luther 
had  written  of  Zwingli:  "I  do  not  regard  Zwingli  as  a  Christian,  for  he  holds  and 
teaches  no  part  of  the  Christian  faith  correctly,  and  has  become  sevenfold  worse 
than  when  he  was  a  papist."  LDS,  30:  225. 


312  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

by  those  from  whom  he  so  greatly  differed  in  belief.  As  one  man  the 
Wittenbergers  declared,  "You  do  not  belong  to  the  communion  of  the 
Christian  Church;  we  cannot  acknowledge  you  as  brothers;  we  can  only 
include  you  in  that  universal  charity  which  we  owe  to  our  enemies." 
Strange  as  it  may  seem,  the  Swiss  were  not  satisfied  with  that! J 

Still  the  Landgrave  urged  that  something  be  done  toward  mutual 
agreement,  loath  on  his  part  that  the  meeting  should  break  up  with 
nothing  accomplished.  Accordingly,  Luther  drew  up  a  confession  of 
faith  in  fifteen  articles,  in  the  German  language,  which  with  little  modi- 
fication by  the  others  was  adopted.  These  articles2  have  a  historic 
interest,  not  only  because  of  the  occasion  that  produced  them,  but  as 
the  first  formal  statement  of  Protestant  belief;  and  they  became  the 
foundation  of  further  confessional  documents,  as  we  shall  see  in  due 
time.  Fourteen  of  the  articles  were  approved  without  difficulty  by  all 
the  parties  to  the  colloquy.  The  fifteenth,  on  the  eucharist,  was  the 
occasion  of  some  further  discussion,  mostly  regarding  the  best  verbal 
expression  of  the  varying  views,  and  was  finally  adopted  in  the  following 
form: 

"We  all  believe,  with  regard  to  the  Supper  of  our  blessed  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  that  it  ought  to  be  celebrated  in  both  kinds,  according 
to  the  institution  of  Christ;  that  the  mass  is  not  a  work  by  which  a 
Christian  obtains  pardon  for  another  man,  whether  dead  or  alive; 
that  the  sacrament  of  the  altar  is  the  sacrament  of  the  very  body 
and  blood  of  Christ ;  and  that  the  spiritual  manducation  of  this  body 
and  blood  is  specially  necessary  to  every  true  Christian.  In  like 
manner,  as  to  the  use  of  the  sacrament,  we  are  agreed  that,  like  the 
word,  it  was  ordained  of  Almighty  God,  in  order  that  weak  con- 
sciences might  be  excited  by  the  Holy  Ghost  to  faith  and  charity. 

"And  although  we  are  not  at  present  agreed  on  the  question 
whether  the  real  body  and  blood  of  Christ  are  corporally  present  in 
the  bread  and  wine,  yet  both  parties  shall  cherish  Christian  charity 
for  each  other,  so  far  as  the  conscience  of  each  will  permit;  and  both 
parties  will  earnestly  implore  Almighty  God  to  strengthen  us  by  his 
Spirit  in  the  true  understanding.  Amen. " 

Luther,  a  consistent  bigot  to  the  last,  would  not  consent  to  sign  the 
statement  until  the  italicized  clause  was  inserted.  And  so  the  con- 
ference at  Marburg  ended  with  Philip's  project  of  a  league  of  all  Prot- 
estants more  necessary  than  ever  for  their  preservation,  and  more 
than  ever  hopeless,  so  long  as  the  princes  should  follow  the  counsel  of 
Luther  and  permit  religious  bigotry  to  guide  their  action,  in  defiance 
alike  of  true  Christian  principle  and  of  ordinary  prudence. 

1  This  account  of  the  debate  has  been  based  upon  the  reports  drawn  up  by  the 
participants,  collected  in  CR,  1 :  1098  sec?.,  and  Zwingli's  works,  Schuler  and  Schulteis, 
5:  173  seq.    Walch,  17:  1943  seq.  gives  a  rich  collection  of  the  Lutheran  documents. 

2  For  the  full  text  of  the  Marburg  articles,  see  Walch,  17:  1939;  LDS,  65:  88; 
CR,  26:  121;  Jacobs  gives  them  in  English,  "Concord,"  2:  269. 


DIVISION  OF  THE  REFORMERS  313 

Admirers  of  Luther,  who  have  been  unwilling  to  see  feet  of  clay 
on  their  idol  of  gold,  have  nevertheless  felt  it  incumbent  on  them  to 
offer  some  apology  for  his  conduct  on  this  occasion.  Such  attempts 
have  been  more  amusing  than  convincing  to  the  world  at  large.  Ranke 
thus  tries  to  make  respectable,  and  even  laudable,  what  has  been  de- 
scribed above  as  disgraceful  bigotry — "We  must  consider  that  the  whole 
Reformation  originated  in  religious  convictions,  which  admit  of  no  com- 
promise, no  condition,  no  extenuation.  The  spirit  of  an  exclusive  ortho- 
doxy, expressed  in  rigid  formulae,  and  denying  salvation  to  its  antagonists, 
now  ruled  the  world.  Hence  the  violent  hostility  between  the  two 
confessions,  which  in  some  respects  approximated  so  nearly."  How 
deftly  this  confuses  the  issue  by  its  assumption  that  the  hostility  was 
mutual,  and  was  a  hostility  "between  the  two  confessions,"  when  the 
facts  so  clearly  witness  that  the  hostility  was  between  persons  and  was 
mainly  confined  to  a  single  party.  Dr.  Schaff  is  bolder,  but  hardly 
more  successful.  He  says  of  this  conduct  of  the  Lutheran  leaders,  "Their 
attitude  in  this  matter  was  narrow  and  impolitic,  but  morally  grand." 
Yes,  if  it  is  morally  grand  to  damage  one's  neighbor  at  the  cost  of  still 
greater  damage  to  oneself;  if  jealousy  that  has  become  personal  hatred, 
if  insane  bigotry,  if  pig-headed  obstinacy  are  morally  grand,  we  have  in 
this  event  such  a  spectacle  of  moral  grandeur  as  cannot  easily  be 
matched  in  the  annals  of  Europe. 

Though  the  Marburg  colloquy  had  shown  union  between  the  Germans 
and  the  Swiss  to  be  impracticable,  as  even  Philip  of  Hesse  reluctantly 
admitted  to  himself,  hope  was  not  yet  abandoned  of  a  league  between 
all  German  Protestants.  Before  the  colloquy,  arrangements  had  been 
made  for  a  meeting  of  the  interested  parties,  and  the  Wittenberg 
theologians  had  been  commissioned  to  draw  up  articles  of  faith  that 
should  serve  as  a  basis  of  union.  The  conference  at  Rodach  had  been 
indecisive;  a  meeting  at  the  convent  of  Schwabach  was  expected  to 
be  more  fruitful.  Representatives  from  Brandenburg  and  Saxony 
conferred  here  with  delegates  from  Strassburg  and  Ulm,  and  on  October 
16th  seventeen  articles  were  laid  before  them.1  The  representatives  of 
the  cities  declined  to  sign  the  articles,  on  the  ground  that  they  held 
no  such  commission,  and  furthermore  that  this  was  a  new  proposal, 
nothing  having  been  said  at  Rodach  about  articles  of  faith  as  a  pre- 

1  CR,  26':  129-160;  Walch,  16:  565  seq.  These  must  not  be  confounded  with 
articles  of  the  same  name  prepared  in  June,  1528,  for  visitation  of  the  churches 
in  Brandenburg  (CR,  26:  132).  It  was  supposed  until  recently  that  these  sec- 
ond Schwabach  articles  were  a  revision  and  enlargement  of  the  fifteen  articles 
adopted  at  Marburg,  which  they  closely  resemble  (see  Jacobs,  "Concord,"  2:  27, 
and  Schaff,  "Creeds,"  1:  228,  note  3).  Later  investigations  have,  however,  made 
it  probable  that  the  Schwabach  articles  were  composed  first,  and  that  Luther 
had  a  copy  of  them  with  him  at  Marburg  and  abbreviated  them  somewhat  for 
submission  to  those  who  took  part  in  the  colloquy.  ZKG,  29:  377  seq. 


314  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

requisite  to  political  action.  A  further  conference  was  arranged  to  be 
held  at  Schmalkald,  and  on  December  4th  a  large  gathering  accordingly 
occurred;  the  princes  of  Saxony,  Hesse  and  Liineberg  attending  in 
person,  and  the  chancellor  of  Brandenburg  representing  Margrave 
George,  while  delegates  also  came  from  ten  cities.  Though  the  political 
situation  had  grown  more  threatening  than  ever,  there  was  no  disposition 
on  either  side  to  yield  an  inch  from  the  positions  both  had  previously 
taken.  The  cities  with  one  accord  refused  to  sign  the  Schwabach  ar- 
ticles, Ulm  and  Strassburg  being  especially  emphatic  in  repudiating 
article  X,  in  which  it  was  declared  that  "there  is  present  in  the  bread 
and  wine  the  true  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  according  to  the  meaning 
of  the  words,  '  This  is  my  body,  this  is  my  blood/  and  they  are  not  merely 
bread  and  wine,  as  the  opposite  party  now  maintains."  The  utmost 
efforts  of  Philip,  who  urgently  warned  all  present  that  they  had  nothing 
to  expect  from  the  Emperor  but  disfavor  and  violence,  did  not  avail 
to  obtain  the  least  concession  from  either  side.  Both  wings  of  the 
Protestant  movement  seemed  obstinately  determined  to  be  conquered 
by  the  Catholics,  rather  than  yield  anything  to  each  other. 

Before  the  conference  broke  up,  however,  it  was  resolved  to  hold 
another  at  Niirnberg  on  January  12th.  The  gathering  was  merely  for- 
mal. None  of  the  princes  attended  in  person,  though  six  of  them  sent 
representatives,  and  but  three  cities  responded,  Niirnberg  itself  being 
the  only  important  town  represented.  Of  a  meeting  from  which  nothing 
was  expected,  naturally  nothing  came.  Only  a  discordant  band  of 
disorganized  Protestants,  looking  with  sullen  suspicion  on  each  other, 
was  left  to  oppose  the  strongest  prince  in  Europe,  who  was  now  freed 
from  his  embarrassments  in  Italy  and  Spain,  and  for  the  first  time 
since  his  election  as  Emperor  able  to  turn  his  entire  attention  to  Ger- 
many. After  long  hesitation,  Charles  had  decided  that  Protestantism 
must  be  crushed  in  his  Empire. 

The  details  of  these  conferences  have  been  tedious,  and  would  be 
altogether  unprofitable,  were  it  not  for  their  importance  as  a  key  to 
subsequent  events.  The  failure  of  these  attempts  to  form  a  strong 
Protestant  league  marks  the  permanent  division  of  the  Reformation 
movement  into  two  distinct  parties,  which  continued  to  view  each  other 
with  mutual  distrust  and  often  appeared  to  hate  each  other  more  cordially 
than  they  disliked  Rome  and  the  Pope.  Since  the  posting  of  the  theses 
and  the  beginning  of  the  Reformation  itself,  we  have  had  no  event  to 
consider  of  so  great  importance  as  the  Marburg  colloquy;  if  the  one 
was  the  beginning  of  the  movement,  the  other  was  its  turning  point 
and  finally  decisive  of  its  character. 

The  whole  story  of  this  unfortunate  division  has  not  been  told.    Though 


DIVISION  OF  THE  REFORMERS  315 

religious  differences  were  the  ostensible  cause,  they  were  in  reality 
hardly  more  than  the  occasion,  the  pretext.  Beneath  the  religious 
dissensions  there  were  political  and  economic  reasons  for  disunion, 
of  which  men  were  at  the  time  no  more  than  dimly  conscious,  if  conscious 
at  all.  The  political  interests  of  the  princes  and  of  the  towns  were  as 
fundamentally  unlike  as  democracy  and  oligarchy  ever  are.  The  economic 
development  of  the  towns  would  have  been  hampered  by  such  an  alliance 
as  was  proposed,  which  in  any  case  could  only  have  been  temporary 
between  parties  of  aims  so  divergent.  Nothing  but  an  urgent  common 
danger  could  have  brought  together  elements  so  incongruous,  and  not 
even  such  a  bond  could  have  held  them  together  for  long.  As  it  was, 
the  urgency  was  not  appreciated,  and  so  there  was  no  sufficient  motive 
to  union.  Had  Luther  not  opposed  the  league  so  strongly,  doubtless 
one  would  have  been  formed,  but  nobody  is  entitled  to  say  that  it  would 
have  continued  or  would  have  proved  effective  for  more  than  a  brief 
time. 

And,  in  fairness  to  Luther,  it  must  be  added  that  he  had  a  strong 
reason,  quite  convincing  to  his  own  mind,  against  the  alliance  proposed, 
or  any  alliance.  He  had  actually  persuaded  himself  that  a  Protestant 
league  would  lead  to  bloodshed  rather  than  prevent  it;  although  the 
avowed  purpose  of  the  union  was  purely  defensive,  and  no  party  was  to 
be  pledged  to  anything,  unless  some  member  were  attacked  on  account 
of  religion.  It  is  possible,  of  course,  that  a  strong  Protestant  league 
might,  in  some  future  contingency,  have  been  persuaded  to  engage  in 
a  policy  of  aggression,  but  under  all  the  circumstances  Luther's  idea 
seems  entirely  absurd  and  without  foundation.  Nevertheless,  we  must 
grant  him  sincerity  and  consistency  in  this  attitude.  He  wrote  to  the 
Elector  of  Saxony,  under  date  of  November  18th:  "  For  we  in  our  con- 
science may  not  sanction  or  advise  such  a  league,  seeing  that,  when 
it  has  continued  and  possibly  bloodshed  or  at  least  misfortune  results 
from  it,  we  should  gladly  be  rid  of  it,  but  cannot,  and  must  bear  an 
intolerable  burden  of  such  a  calamity,  that  we  would  rather  have  died 
ten  deaths  than  have  such  knowledge  that  our  Gospel  had  become  the 
occasion  of  any  blood  or  shame."  Christ's  cross,  he  adds,  must  always 
be  borne;  the  world  will  not  bear  it,  but  Christians  must  bear  it 
willingly.  We  have  hitherto  awaited  the  help  of  God,  confident  that 
our  cause  is  his  own,  and  this  must  still  be  our  confidence.1  As  late 
as  March  6th,  when  affairs  had  grown  much  more  threatening,  he 
maintains  the  same  ideas:  "Even  though  his  imperial  majesty  does 
injustice  and  violates  his  faith  and  oath,  he  does  not  thereby  annul 
his  imperial  authority  and  forfeit  the  obedience  of  his  subjects,  while 

»De  Wette,  3:  536. 


316  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

the  electors  hold  him  for  Emperor  and  do  not  depose  him."  Princes 
and  subjects  alike  must  not  resist,  even  if  he  breaks  all  the  com- 
mandments of  God.  "Let  the  Emperor  do  with  his  own  as  he  will, 
so  long  as  he  is  Emperor."1  And  if  it  be  said  by  any  hasty  reader  that 
it  was  easy  for  Luther,  in  the  quiet  and  seclusion  of  his  study,  to  give 
such  advice  to  princes,  let  it  be  remembered  how  his  own  fortunes  were 
involved  and  that  the  ruin  of  the  Elector  was  his  ruin. 

Nevertheless,  making  all  deductions  and  allowances  that  either  candor 
or  charity  demand,  giving  Luther  the  benefit  of  every  doubt,  the  stubborn 
fact  remains  and  will  not  be  altered,  that,  from  whatever  motives,  he 
was  at  least  the  chief  occasion,  if  not  the  prime  cause,  of  the  unfortunate 
division  of  the  Protestants.  Nor  is  it  less  a  fact  that  this  division,  by 
offering  the  encouragement  to  Catholic  aggression  that  weakness  ever 
offers  to  unscrupulous  power,  was  later  to  result  in  deluging  Germany 
with  blood  and  bringing  her  to  the  verge  of  ruin.  And  in  the  end,  by 
one  of  those  turns  of  events  that  we  sometimes  term  "poetic  justice," 
the  very  party  that  scorned  alliance  with  the  Protestant  Swiss  were 
forced  to  turn  to  Catholic  France  for  preservation  from  total  destruction. 
Though  Melanchthon  instigated  the  trouble,  and  throughout  achieved 
the  bad  eminence  of  ably  seconding  Luther  in  his  divisive  policy,  the 
great  reformer  cannot  be  acquitted  of  the  guilt  of  causing  the  greatest 
calamity  that  ever  overtook  Europe:  the  longest  war,  the  most  bloody, 
the  most  destructive  to  all  the  interests  of  civilization,  that  was  ever 
waged  in  the  name  of  religion  in  all  the  history  of  mankind.  For,  if 
Luther  had  chosen  the  contrary  course,  he  would  have  been  able  easily 
to  bring  Melanchthon  and  the  German  princes  into  line.  He,  he  alone, 
was  the  one  impassable  obstacle  to  Protestant  unity.  He  must  there- 
fore be  chiefly  held  responsible  for  the  ills  that  resulted  from  Protestant 
disunion. 

i  De  Wette,  3:  560-563.  Luther  more  than  hints  his  opinion  that  the  electors 
ought  to  depose  Charles,  but  in  the  meantime  if  he  does  wrong  no  single  prince 
or  combination  of  princes  ought  to  offer  forcible  resistance.  Luther  was  still  in 
bondage  to  medieval  theories  of  the  Empire. 


CHAPTER  II 

THE  AUGSBURG  DIET  AND  THE  CONFESSION 

IN  November,  1529,  Charles  V  and  Clement  VII  had  a  memorable 
interview  at  Bologna.  In  this  personal  conference  they  accomplished 
what  they  had  been  unable  to  do  through  ambassadors:  they  adjusted 
all  their  differences,  laid  aside  their  mutual  distrust  and  came  to  a 
good  understanding  with  each  other.  The  Pope  was  finally  convinced 
that  the  Church  had  no  more  loyal  son  than  the  Emperor,  and  that 
there  was  no  monarch  in  Europe  who  had  the  power  to  do  so  much  for 
the  Church.  On  the  other  hand,  Charles  felt  himself  henceforth  assured 
of  the  Pope's  support,  not  because  he  now  more  than  formerly  trusted 
one  of  the  Medici,  but  because  this  scion  of  that  crafty  house  had  become 
assured  that  his  own  interests  demanded  the  support  of  the  Emperor.  The 
honor  of  Clement  VII  could  not,  his  selfishness  could,  be  trusted. 
There  was  only  one  subject  on  which  they  were  not  agreed:  the  calling 
of  a  council.  The  Pope  dreaded  the  assemblage  of  such  a  body,  and  though 
he  promised  to  issue  a  call,  he  promised  with  manifest  reluctance  and 
it  was  evident  that  he  was  ready  to  seize  upon  any  pretext  to  postpone 
the  meeting  or  to  get  rid  of  it  altogether.  Charles,  on  the  contrary, 
ardently  desired  a  council,  was  convinced  that  one  was  altogether  neces- 
sary for  the  restoration  of  peace  and  unity  to  the  Church,  and  hoped 
great  things  from  its  meeting.1 

The  first  fruit  of  this  new  accord  was  the  coronation  of  Charles  as 
Emperor.  Hitherto  his  title  had  been,  in  strictness,  Emperor-elect — 
he  was  not  regarded  as  really  Emperor  until  he  had  received  his  imperial 
crown  from  the  Pope.  This,  at  least,  was  the  theory  in  Church  circles, 
though  it  was  rapidly  weakening  in  law  and  in  fact.  Long  before  this 
the  Diet  had  declared  at  Frankfort  (1328)  that  the  imperial  dignity 
was  dependent  on  God  alone,  and  that  the  choice  of  an  Emperor  by 
the  electors  did  not  require  papal  confirmation  for  its  validity.  This 
action  was  confirmed  at  the  Diet  of  Metz  (1347),  and  the  question  was 
thenceforth  regarded  as  a  settled  one  in  the  constitution  of  the  Empire.2 
Emperors  were  thenceforth  so  called  even  in  formal  documents  before 
coronation,  and  Charles  was  the  last  Emperor  to  receive  the  crown  from 
a  Pope.  This  lends  special  interest  to  the  ceremony  of  his  coronation 

»  Walch,  16:  docs.  888  and  889. 

'Geffcken,  Church  and  State,  2  vols.,  London,  1877,  1:  255-257. 

317 


318  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

as  the.  last  function  of  the  sort  ever  held.  Another  exceptional  feature 
of  the  occasion  gives  it  a  unique  interest:  it  was  the  only  instance  in 
which  an  Emperor  was  ever  crowned  outside  of  Rome.  The  visitor 
to  the  Eternal  City  is  still  shown  a  large  slab  of  stone,  about  the 
middle  of  the  nave  of  St.  Peter's,  on  which  it  was  customary  to  place 
the  throne  occupied  by  the  greatest  monarch  of  the  medieval  world 
when  he  was  formally  invested  with  the  imperial  dignity. 

This  coronation  occurred  February  24,  1530,  in  the  church  of  San  Petro- 
nio,  Bologna.  A  wooden  awning  or  bridge,  between  the  adjoining  palace 
and  the  Church,  broke  down  under  the  weight  of  the  imperial  cortege, 
but  Charles  himself  had  fortunately  passed  into  the  Church  and  escaped 
injury.  Nevertheless,  the  superstitious  saw  in  the  incident  an  evil  omen, 
presaging  the  failure  of  his  ambitious  projects  for  the  advancement  of 
Empire  and  Church.  After  high  mass  and  many  religious  ceremonies, 
Charles  took  a  solemn  oath  that  he  would  "for  the  future  with  all  his 
might,  mind  and  strength  be  a  constant  protector  of  the  Papal  See 
and  Roman  Church  .  .  .  and  maintain  and  preserve  the  authority, 
right  and  supremacy  of  the  Church,  so  far  as  he  could."  l  He  was  then 
clothed  in  a  richly  jeweled  robe;  the  Pope  anointed  him  with  holy  oil; 
and  placed  first  the  iron  crown  of  Lombardy  on  his  head,  and  afterwards 
the  crown  of  Charlemagne.  A  great  assembly  of  notables  were  present 
at  the  ceremony,  but  the  electors  had  not  been  invited,  nor  consulted 
regarding  the  treaties  Charles  had  made  with  the  Pope.  They  entered  a 
formal  protest,  on  the  ground  that  such  neglect  was  contrary  to  the 
constitution  of  the  Empire.  But  both  electors  and  Emperor  were  showing 
to  the  world,  whenever  it  suited  them,  that  the  constitution  of  the 
Empire  was  now  about  as  valuable  as  an  old  rag. 

Charles  was  now  at  liberty  to  devote  his  attention  to  Germany  and 
its  affairs.  Early  in  May,  1530,  he  crossed  the  Alps,  on  his  way  to  Augs- 
burg, where  the  Diet  had  been  previously  summoned  to  meet  April  8th. 
The  imperial  summons  had  magnified  the  danger  of  invasion  by  the  Turks 
and  expressed  the  hope  that  all  would  unite  in  the  defense  of  the  Empire. 
As  to  the  religious  differences,  the  Estates  were  invited  to  confer  with  the 
Emperor  and  assured  that  "every  man's  judgment,  view  and  opinion 
should  be  heard,  understood  and  considered,  in  love  and  kindness,  in 
order  to  bring  and  unite  them  into  a  single  Christian  truth,  so  as  to 
dispose  of  everything  that  had  not  been  rightly  explained  or  treated, 
on  both  sides:  that  a  single  true  religion  may  be  accepted  and  held  by 
us  all,  and,  as  we  all  live  and  serve  under  one  Christ,  so  we  may  live  in 
one  fellowship,  Church  and  unity."2  These  were  fair  promises  and  the 

1  Walch,  16:  622. 

2  Walch,  16:  629. 


THE  AUGSBURG  DIET  AND  THE  CONFESSION        319 

Protestant  princes  came  to  the  Diet  more  hopefully  than  at  any  time 
since  the  Reformation  began. 

The  Emperor  was  delayed  and  did  not  arrive  at  Augsburg  until  June 
15th.  On  the  following  day  was  the  feast  of  Corpus  Christi,  and  he  him- 
self set  an  edifying  example  by  walking  in  the  procession  with  uncovered 
head  under  the  midday  sun  of  a  very  hot  day,  holding  a  burning  candle 
in  his  hand.  The  princes  showed  their  metal  by  absenting  themselves 
from  this  (as  they  said)  idolatrous  ceremony.  The  Emperor  besought 
them  to  lay  aside  their  objections  "for  the  glory  of  God"  and  accompany 
the  procession,  but  the  princes  returned  a  signed  statement,  in  which 
they  said:  "It  is  recognized  by  all  reasonable,  learned  and  fair-minded 
Christians  that  the  whole  and  unmutilated  use  of  the  true  body  and  blood 
of  Christ  had  been  ordained  and  instituted  by  the  Founder  himself;  and 
that  it  was  contrary  to  Christ's  commandment  to  carry  about  one  part 
of  it,  namely,  the  body.  It  would  be  gross  irreverence,  blasphemy  and 
sin  to  show  greater  regard  for  a  ceremony  introduced  by  men  than  for 
the  commandment  of  God;  they  had  no  intention  of  adding  their  presence 
to  swell  the  masquerading  parade  of  Corpus  Christi;  such  godless  per- 
formances ought  rather  to  be  clean  abolished  from  the  Church."  l  It 
speaks  much  for  the  Emperor's  good  sense  and  self-control  that  he  re- 
ceived with  calmness  words  so  needlessly  insulting.  Nor  were  the  princes 
more  pliant  when  summoned  to  a  private  interview  and  required  to 
prohibit  the  evangelical  preachers  who  accompanied  them  from  ex- 
ercising their  office  during  the  Diet.  The  sturdy  Margrave  of  Branden- 
burg declared  that  he  would  kneel  down  before  the  Emperor  and  have  his 
head  struck  off,  rather  than  deny  God.  Charles  replied  hastily  in  his 
low  German,  "Not  head  off,  dear  prince,  not  head  off."  The  Lutherans 
remained  obdurate  even  when  Charles  made  the  conciliating  proposal  that 
the  preaching  on  both  sides  should  be  suspended,  and  that  only  those  of 
his  appointment  should  deliver  sermons,  "without  touching  on  questions 
under  dispute" ;  and  throughout  the  session  the  princes  persisted  in  hold- 
ing their  evangelical  services  in  private  houses  where  they  were  lodged. 

The  Diet  was  formally  opened  June  20th,  with  high  mass  celebrated  by 
the  Archbishop  of  Mainz,  a  sermon  and  an  address  from  the  throne. 
On  this  occasion  the  Protestant  princes  were  more  complaisant  and 
attended  the  ceremony;  the  Elector  of  Saxony,  as  Grand  Marshal,  bore 
the  Emperor's  jeweled  sword  before  him.  It  was  sometimes  permissible 
to  bow  down  in  the  temple  of  Rimmon!  When  the  Diet  assembled 
in  the  Rathhaus,  his  Majesty  declared  that  he  was  anxious  "by  fair 
and  gentle  means"  to  end  the  religious  disputes  that  were  causing  so 

1Walch,  16:  680  seq.  The  princes  of  Saxony,  Brandenburg,  Liineberg  and 
Hesse  were  the  signatories. 


320  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

much  division  and  distraction  in  Germany,  and  that  the  aid  of  the 
Estates  was  invited  in  the  coming  campaign  against  the  Turks.  He 
was  willing  to  hear  from  the  Protestants  a  statement  of  their  beliefs, 
and  the  grounds  for  them,  and  commanded  them  to  have  it  ready  and 
submit  it  to  him  in  writing  within  four  days.  Greatly  desirous  to  ac- 
complish something  for  the  peace  and  unity  of  Germany,  Charles  was 
in  a  decidedly  conciliatory  mood.  None  knew  better  than  he  that  his 
predominance  in  Europe  was  more  apparent  than  real.  He  could  count 
with  no  certainty  either  on  the  Pope  or  on  Francis,  though  both  were 
apparently  friendly;  the  Turk  was  still  a  serious  menace;  he  did  not  have 
the  full  and  hearty  support  even  of  the  Catholic  Estates.  It  was  cer- 
tainly wise  to  try  what  persuasion  might  accomplish  before  resorting 
to  threats  and  violence.  So  thought  and  advised  the  Pope  also. 

The  Protestant  princes  believed,  or  tried  to  believe,  that  the  Emperor 
meant  what  he  said,  that  they  were  now  for  the  first  time  to  have  a 
fair  hearing,  the  opportunity  to  make  a  full  statement  and  defense  of 
their  doctrine  and  reforms.  The  Emperor's  demand  for  a  written  docu- 
ment had  been  early  foreseen  by  the  prudent  chancellor  of  the  Elector 
of  Saxony,  Dr.  Gregory  Briick,  who  made  the  following  suggestion: 
"Inasmuch  as  the  imperial  rescript  provides  that  the  opinion  and  view 
of  each  one  is  to  be  heard,  it  would  be  a  good  thing  for  us  to  bring  to- 
gether systematically,  in  writing,  the  views  maintained  by  our  party, 
and  to  fortify  them  out  of  the  Scriptures,  so  as  to  present  them  in  writing, 
in  case  the  preachers  should  not  be  admitted  to  participate  in  the  trans- 
actions. This  will  facilitate  business,  and  it  will  serve  to  remove  mis- 
understanding to  have  such  views  and  opinions  presented."  In  con- 
sequence of  this  suggestion,  the  Elector  addressed  a  letter  to  Luther 
and  his  colleagues,  March  14th,  in  which  he  requested  them  to  prepare 
"articles  both  of  faith  and  other  church  usages  and  ceremonies"  and 
present  them  at  Torgau.  About  a  fortnight  later  Melanchthon  went  to 
Torgau,  presumably  taking  with  him  what  had  been  prepared,  an  apolo- 
getic statement  since  known  as  the  Torgau  articles.1  These  were  not 
articles  of  faith,  but  rather  pertained  to  "church  usages  and  ceremonies." 
The  Schwabach  articles  were  probably  at  this  time  regarded  as  a  sufficient 
statement  of  the  Lutheran  doctrine,  and  had  already  been  accepted 
by  the  Elector  as  his  personal  Confession,  as  well  as  published  in  an 
authorized  edition  by  Luther,  who  called  them  those  "beautiful,  holy, 
superb  articles."  2 

1  Forstemann,  Urkunderibuch  zu  der  Geschichte  des  Reichstags  zu  Augsburg.    2  vols., 
Halle,  1883-6,  1:  68  seq.     English  translation  in  Jacobs,  "Concord,"  2:  75  seq. 

2  There  had  been  a  previous  unauthorized  edition  at  Coburg,  which  had  been 
attacked  by  Conrad  Wirapina  and  others;  and  Luther  accordingly  entitled  his 
republication  "Martin  Luther's  Reply  to  the  Howl  of  Certain  Papists."     LDS, 
24:  337.     The  "howl"  may  be  found  in  Walch,  16:  638-648. 


THE  AUGSBURG  DIET  AND  THE  CONFESSION        321 

After  reaching  Augsburg,  however,  the  Elector  and  his  advisers  felt 
that  neither  the  Schwabach  nor  the  Torgau  articles  were  exactly  adapted 
to  the  exigency,  and  Melanchthon  was  commissioned  to  draw  up  a 
statement  that  should  more  adequately  set  forth  the  beliefs  of  the  Prot- 
estant party  and  their  objections  to  certain  practices  of  the  Roman 
Church.  The  younger  reformer  had  been  taken  by  the  Elector  to 
Augsburg  for  such  service  as  this,  while  Luther,  who  ardently  desired 
to  go,  was  commanded  not  to  leave  Saxony.  The  ban  of  the  Empire 
was  still  against  him,  and  going  to  Augsburg  would  be  throwing  him- 
self into  the  lion's  jaws.  He  was  therefore  compelled  to  remain  at  the 
Elector's  castle  of  Coburg,  as  near  the  border  as  he  dared  to  go,  where 
he  maintained  a  lively  correspondence  with  Melanchthon  and  others, 
and  carried  on  his  studies.  It  was  better  so,  though  naturally  it  was 
hard  for  Luther  to  see  it,  for  he  was  a  man  of  stubborn  will  and  violent 
temper,  fierce  in  controversy,  and  would  have  exasperated  his  papal 
antagonists  to  madness.  If  diplomacy  could  accomplish  anything  toward 
the  reunion  of  Christendom,  Melanchthon  was  the  man  to  conduct  the 
Lutheran  side  of  the  negotiations. 

Melanchthon  may  have  begun  his  work  before  he  parted  from  Luther 
at  Coburg,  but  it  seems  clear  that  he  had  made  no  great  progress.1  On 
arriving  at  Augsburg  (May  2)  he  set  at  work  in  earnest,  and  by  May  11 
had  finished  his  first  draft,  a  copy  of  which  was  sent  to  Luther  by  the 
Elector.  With  it  went  a  letter,  in  which  Melanchthon  says :  "  Our  Apology 
has  been  sent  to  you,  though  it  is  more  properly  a  Confession.  For  the 
Emperor  will  not  have  time  to  hear  long  discussions.  Nevertheless,  I 
have  said  those  things  that  I  thought  would  be  especially  profitable 
and  appropriate.  With  this  purpose  I  have  included  about  all  the 
[Schwabach]  articles  of  faith,  because  Eck  has  published  the  most  dia- 
bolical slanders  against  us.2  Against  these  I  wished  to  present  a  remedy. 
Determine  in  regard  to  the  whole  writing  in  accordance  with  your 
spirit." 

1  What  he  had  done  was  intended  as  a  preface  or  exordium  to  the  main  document, 
which  was  to  be  the  revised  articles  of  Torgau.    "I  have  made  the  exordium  of  our 
Apology  somewhat  more  rhetorical  than  I  had  written  it  at  Coburg.     In  a  short 
time  I  will  bring  it,  or,  if  the  prince  will  not  permit  that,  I  will  send  it."    Melanch- 
thon to  Luther,  May  4,  CR,  2:  40.      This  sycophantic  address  to  the  Emperor 
was  afterwards  dropped  and  lost  sight  of,  until  its  discovery  in  1905.     Richards, 
"Confessional  History  of  the  Lutheran  Church,"  Philadelphia,  1909,  pp.  50-53! 

2  The  reference  is  to  404  articles  which  Eck  and  the  other  Ingolstadt  theologians 
had,  at  the  request  of  the  Duke  of  Bavaria,  extracted  from  the  writings  of  Luther, 
Melanchthon  and  others.     In  these  articles,  no  distinction  was  made  between 
Lutherans,  Zwinglians,  and  Anabaptists,  who  were  all  classed  together  as  godless 
heretics  and  disturbers  of  the  peace  of  the  Church.     These  articles  were  sent  to 
the  Emperor.     The  Elector  of  Saxony  seems  to  have  heard  of  this,  and  sent  to 
Charles  at  Innsbruck  a  private  confession,  based  on  the  Schwabach  articles.     A 
copy  of  this  document  was  obtained  from  the  papal  archives  and  published  with 
an  English  translation  in  the  Lutheran  Quarterly  for  July,  1901,  by  the  late  Pro- 
fessor James  W.  Richard,  and  reprinted  in  Studien  und  Kritiken,  1903,  p.  345  seq. 


322  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

Luther  was  conscious  that  his  friend  had  greater  gifts  than  he  for  a 
service  of  this  nature,  and  did  not  venture  to  alter  the  work.  He  replied 
May  15th  to  the  Elector:  "I  have  read  over  Master  Philip's  Apology. 
I  know  not  how  to  improve  or  change  it,  nor  would  it  become  me,  since 
I  cannot  move  so  softly  and  gently.  Christ  our  Lord  help  that  it  may 
bring  forth  much  fruit,  as  we  hope  and  pray."  l  For  once  in  his  life, 
Luther  was  prudent  as  well  as  brave.  Had  he  drawn  up  the  articles,  we 
may  be  sure  they  would  have  been  much  more  aggressive  and  polemic, 
and  by  just  so  much  less  suitable  to  the  occasion.  He  would,  for  example, 
have  insisted  on  inserting  and  retaining  sola  in  the  article  on  justifica- 
tion, and  in  the  second  part  would  have  made  the  rejection  of  purgatory 
and  popery  emphatic  and  unmistakable.  Coming  from  his  pen,  the  articles 
would  have  been  so  many  spear-points,  and  their  bristling  array  would 
have  provoked  instant  and  bitter  antagonism  from  the  Catholic  party.2 
Melanchthon  contrived  to  present  the  ideas  of  the  Protestants  in  a  form 
as  little  offensive  as  possible,  and  yet  so  to  state  the  main  points  that 
there  was  no  misapprehending  their  meaning. 

But  though  Luther  ventured  to  change  nothing,  Melanchthon  was 
yet  to  change  much.  This  copy  sent  to  Luther  was  only  a  first  rough 
draft.  Three  entire  articles  were  added  to  this:  xx,  pf  faith  and  good 
works;  xxvii,  Of  vows,  and  xxviii,  Of  ecclesiastical  power.  In  a  letter 
to  Luther  dated  May  22d,  he  says,  "We  change  many  things  daily." 
There  were  frequent  conferences  with  the  other  Protestant  theologians, 
and  even  with  some  Romanists,  each  of  which  resulted  in  some  modi- 
fication of  a  phrase  here,  or  the  addition  of  a  clause  there.  Melanchthon 
also  labored  unceasingly  on  the  style,  to  give  the  last  degree  of  polish 
to  the  latinity.  With  the  copy  in  German  less  pains  were  taken;  even 
its  text  did  not  in  all  respects  correspond  with  the  Latin. 

The  first  idea  of  the  Elector  had  been  to  produce  and  hand  in  a  Saxon 
document,  and  prior  to  June  8th,  there  seems  to  have  been  no  plan  of 
consulting  the  other  princes.  Then  the  Margrave  of  Brandenburg 
suggested  that  if  this  could  be  made  the  Confession  of  all  the  Estates 
that  had  accepted  the  Lutheran  Reformation,  it  would  have  much  more 
weight  with  the  Emperor  and  the  Diet.  The  suggestion  was  so  obviously 
wise  that  it  found  favor  at  once,  and  on  June  23d  the  princes  and  their 
counsellors,  together  with  the  delegates  from  Niirnberg  and  Reutlingen, 
met  for  consultation.  The  Confession  was  read  and  discussed.  Melanch- 
thon urged  that  it  should  be  signed  by  the  theologians  only,  but  the 

1  De  Wette,  4:  17;  Walch,  16:  650-657. 

J  What  doubt  one  might  otherwise  have  on  this  point  is  quickly  removed  by  a 
perusal  of  the  Schmalkald  articles,  that  Luther  drew  up  later  for  a  similar  occa- 
sion and  purpose.  At  this  time  also  he  prepared  and  published  what  was  virtually 
his  confession,  Vermahnung  an  die  geistlichen  Versammelt  auf  dem  Reichstag  zu 
Augsburg,  LDS,  24:  356;  Walch,  16:  945  seq. 


THE  AUGSBURG  DIET  AND  THE  CONFESSION        323 

Elector  of  Saxony,  thenceforth  known  as  John  the  Constant,  replied, 
"I  too  will  confess  my  Christ."  So  said  they  all,  and  accordingly  seven 
princes  and  the  delegates  of  the  two  cities  subscribed  the  Confession: 
John,  Elector  of  Saxony,  and  his  son,  John  Frederick;  George,  Margrave 
of  Brandenburg;  Dukes  Ernest  and  Francis,  of  Liineberg;  Philip,  Land- 
grave of  Hesse;  and  Prince  Wolfgang,  of  Anhalt.  It  required  some  courage 
to  do  this;  none  knew  what  the  issue  of  the  matter  might  be,  or  how 
long  the  Emperor's  conciliatory  policy  might  last,  and  there  was  more 
than  a  fair  probability  that  signing  might  result  in  loss  of  dignities  and 
power. 

It  was  the  Emperor's  first  idea  to  take  up  the  matter  in  private,  and 
dispose  of  it  without  any  scandal,  but  to  this  the  princes  would  not  con- 
sent. They  were  not  ashamed  of  this  thing,  that  they  should  do  -it 
in  a  corner,  and  they  insisted  that  the  Confession  should  be  read  before 
the  assembled  Diet.  But  to  this  in  turn  Charles  would  by  no  means  con- 
sent. A  compromise  was  proposed  and  accepted:  instead  of  hearing  the 
reading  of  the  Confession  in  public  session  in  the  golden  hall  of  the  Rath- 
haus,  a  special  meeting  was  appointed  for  Saturday,  June  25th,  in  a  hall  or 
chapel  of  the  episcopal  palace,  in  which  the  Emperor  was  lodged.  When 
the  appointed  time  came  a  large  concourse  assembled,  but  as  the  hall 
would  hold  only  some  two  hundred  persons,  none  were  admitted  save 
members  of  the  Diet  and  high  notables — the  rest  were  compelled  to  remain 
in  the  hall  and  court,  and  even  in  the  street  there  was  a  throng.  As  the 
day  was  warm  and  all  the  windows  open,  and  the  reader  spoke  in  a  loud 
voice,  most  of  them  heard  quite  clearly.1  Charles  wished  the  Latin 
copy  to  be  read,  as  he  could  understand  that  better,  but  the  Elector 
of  Saxony  interposed:  "We  are  on  German  soil,  and  therefore  I  hope 
your  Majesty  will  allow  the  German  language."  There  was  reason  in 
what  he  said,  and  Charles  yielded  the  point.  It  was  not  an  unnatural 
result,  perhaps,  that  his  Majesty  kept  his  eyes  fast  closed  during  the 
major  portion  of  the  reading — doubtless  that  he  might  listen  more  in- 
tently. As  if  to  show  that  he  was  quite  impartial,  however,  he  did  the 
same  a  few  days  later  when  the  Roman  theologians  had  the  floor  for 
several  hours  with  their  Confutation.2 

The  purpose  of  the  Confession,  as  we  have  already  seen,  is  clearly 
shown  by  all  the  circumstances  of  its  composition  to  have  been  purely 

1  The  Confession  was  read  so  loud  and  plainly,  says  Spalatin,  that  through  the 
open  windows  the  people  standing  in  the  court  and  street  could  hear  every  word. 
Annales,  134,  135. 

2  This  "king  business,"  as  Victor  Emanuel  called  it,  must  be  a  dreadful  bore 
at  times — to  have  to  sit  in  a  big,  uncomfortable  chair,  yclept  a  "throne,"  clothed 
in  heavy  and  hot  robes,  and  listen  by  the  hour  to  the  reading  of  interminable 
documents  of  which  one  does  not  comprehend  a  word,  and  all  the  while  look  dig- 
nified and  wise — one  would  rather  lecture  on  Church  History  than  do  that! 


324  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

apologetic.  This  conclusion  is  amply  supported  by  the  language  of 
the  document  itself.1  In  the  Preface,  the  Emperor's  own  words  are  re- 
peated, with  slight  verbal  alteration,  and  the  attainment  of  peace, 
unity  and  the  truth  of  God  is  avowed  as  the  object.  Failing  agreement 
by  mutual  discussion  at  this  Diet,  the  appeal  is  made  as  heretofore  to 
a  "general,  free  and  Christian  council." 

The  body  of  the  Confession  is  divided  into  two  parts.  The  first, 
based  on  the  Schwabach  articles,2  contains  twenty-two  articles,  of  which 
all  but  the  first  three  and  xvi,  xvii,  xix,  are  concerned  with  the  distinctive 
Lutheran  teaching:  Justification  by  faith  (iv),  the  Church  (vii),  the 
sacraments  (ix,  x,  xiii),  confession  (xi),  penance  (xii),  ecclesiastical 
rites  (xv),  free  will  (xviii),  good  works  (xx),  worship  of  saints  (xxi). 
The  Lutheran  doctrine  is  stated  very  carefully,  with  studied  moderation 
and  the  obvious  aim  of  minimizing  the  differences  between  Lutherans 
and  Papists,  but  the  divergencies  cannot  be  wholly  concealed  even 
by  the  literary  deftness  of  a  Melanchthon.  The  article  on  justification 
unmistakably  rejects  the  idea  that  merit  attaches  to  good  works.  Other 
ideas  incompatible  with  Catholic  orthodoxy  in  the  articles  were:  the 
affirmation  of  the  Real  Presence  in  the  eucharist  instead  of  transub- 
stantiation; 3  the  denial  of  the  necessity  of  enumerating  all  sins  in  oral 
confession;  silence  concerning  canonical  penance,  which  was  a  virtual 
rejection  of  it;  rejection  of  the  external  efficiency  of  the  sacraments, 
ex  opere  operato;  the  rejection  of  a  part  of  the  historic  rites  of  the  Church, 
on  the  ground  that  they  were  sinful  and  burdensome  on  the  conscience. 

So  numerous  were  the  divergencies  of  the  Lutherans  from  Catholic 
orthodoxy,  that  the  Confession  was  disingenuous  in  asserting  (art.  xxii), 
"This  is  about  the  sum  of  doctrine  among  us,"  and  on  this  ground  making 
the  claim  "that  there  is  nothing  which  is  discrepant  with  the  Scriptures, 
or  with  the  Catholic  Church,  or  even  with  the  Roman  Church,  so  far 
as  that  Church  is  known  from  writers"  [i.e.  the  Fathers].  When  one 
considers  that  the  Confession  passes  by  in  silence  such  characteristic 

1  The  Confession  may  be    found    in    German    in  Walch,    16:    831-875;  both 
German  and  Latin,  critically  edited,  in  CR,  26:  263  seq. ;  Latin  text  and  parallel 
English  translation  in  Schaff,  "Creeds,"  3:   4-73;   English  text  only  in  Jacobs, 
"Concord,"  1:  30-68.     Copies  in  both  languages  were  presented  to  Charles,  but 
these  originals  long  ago  mysteriously  disappeared. 

2  Articles  i-xi,  and  xiii-xvii  correspond  to  articles  of  the  Schwabach  confession; 
art.  xiv  is  only  implied  in  xii  of  Schwabach;  articles  xii,  xviii,  xix,  xx  and  xxi  are 
entirely  new;  while  articles  xv  and  xvi  of  Schwabach  do  not  appear  in  the  Augs- 
burg.    All  the  damnatory  clauses  of  Augsburg  are  new.     Throughout  there  are 
expansions,  divisions  and  alterations,  so  greatly  changing  some  of  the  Schwabach 
articles  as  to  make  them  virtually  new.     Thus  xii  of  Schwabach  becomes  vii,  viii 
and  xiv  of  Augsburg;  while  vii  and  viii  of  Schwabach  are  condensed  into  v  of 
Augsburg,  and  ii  and  iii  into  iii. 

3  As  this  had  been  made  an  article  of  faith  by  the  fourth  Lateran  council,  of 
1215  (Mansi,  22:  981-2),  it  is  hard  to  comprehend  how  the  Lutherans  reconciled 
this  denial  of  the  doctrine  with  their  claim  to  be  still  considered  Catholics. 


THE  AUGSBURG  DIET  AND  THE  CONFESSION        325 

teaching  as  that  of  Luther  on  the  priesthood  of  all  believers,  on  predes- 
tination, on  the  efficacy  of  indulgences;  that  it  fails  to  make  any  deliver- 
ance on  mooted  points  like  the  divine  right  of  the  Papacy,  indelible  orders, 
seven  sacraments  or  two,  and  purgatory,  the  above  statement  cannot 
be  regarded  as  truthful.1  Nor  does  another  immediately  following  com- 
mend itself  to  the  truth-loving  mind:  that  the  whole  controversy  was 
only  concerning  "a  few  abuses,"  recognized  as  such  by  Catholic  doctors  of 
the  highest  standing.  The  thoroughgoing  Protestant  is  also  some- 
what disquieted  to  discover  that  the  Confession  does  not  appeal  to  the 
Scriptures  alone,  but  also  and  frequently  to  the  Fathers.  That  may 
have  been  good  tactics,  but  was  hardly  honest.  But  with  all  omissions 
and  disingenuousness,  one  fact  at  least  stands  out  clearly:  the  cardinal 
Protestant  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith  is  distinctly  and  even  em- 
phatically stated,  in  both  parts  of  the  Confession. 

Part  II  is  a  revision  of  the  Torgau  articles,  and  at  the  time  was  con- 
sidered the  most  important  part  of  the  document,  inasmuch  as  it  was 
intended  to  be  a  justification  of  the  practical  religious  reforms  instituted 
in  the  domains  of  the  signers.  It  consists  of  the  following  articles:  i,  Of 
both  kinds;  ii,  Of  the  marriage  of  priests;  iii,  Of  the  mass;  iv,  Of  con- 
fession; v,  Of  meats  and  traditions;  vi,  Of  monastic  vows.  This  part 
of  the  Confession  is  described  by  some  modern  writers  as  "polemic," 
and  compared  with  Part  I  it  is  fitted  to  make  that  impression  upon 
a  merely  casual  reader.  But  a  more  careful  study  discloses  its  purely 
apologetic  intent.  How  far  Melanchthon  stretched  the  truth  in  order 
to  conciliate  the  Catholics  may  be  judged  from  the  opening  sentences 
of  article  ii:  "Our  churches  are  wrongfully  accused  of  having  abolished 
the  mass.  For  the  mass  is  still  retained  among  us,  and  celebrated  with 
great  reverence;  yea,  and  almost  all  the  ceremonies  that  are  in  use, 
saving  that  with  the  things  sung  in  Latin  we  mingle  certain  things  sung 
in  German  at  various  parts  of  the  service."  Nevertheless  it  is  admitted 
that  private  masses  have  been  "laid  aside  among  us,  seeing  that  for 
the  most  part  there  were  no  private  masses  but  only  for  lucre's  sake." 
And  it  is  elaborately  argued  that  masses  cannot  take  away  the  sins 
of  the  quick  and  the  dead,  else  justification  comes  by  works  and  not 
by  faith.  It  will  scarcely  be  maintained  by  any  candid  student  of  the 
documents  that  the  Confession  gives  a  frank  and  accurate  account  of 
either  the  doctrine  or  the  practice  of  the  reformers,  but  rather  such  a 
partial  and  carefully  reticent  statement  as  would  be  likely  to  arouse 
least  prejudice  among  Catholics.  The  damnatory  clauses,  rejecting 

1  Melanchthon' s  excuse  at  the  time  for  these  silences  of  the  Confession  was 
that  he  thought  it  better  to  "omit  everything  that  increases  the  bitterness." 
Later  he  said  he  had  "omitted  some  unnecessary  perplexing  discussions,  that  every- 
one might  know  what  the  chief  doctrine  is  in  these  churches." 


326  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

the  teaching  of  Zwinglians  and  Anabaptists,  were  carefully  contrived 
to  emphasize  the  difference  between  the  Lutherans  and  these  admittedly 
heretical  and  sectarian  parties.  ' 

It  is  a  curious  fact,  and  also  a  characteristic,  that  Melanchthon  was 
afraid  before  the  reading  that  he  had  yielded  too  much  to  his  desire  to 
avoid  unnecessary  offense,  and  so  had  made  the  Confession  too  mild; 
but,  no  sooner  had  it  been  read,  than  he  was  plunged  in  the  depths  of 
despondency  by  the  fear  that  he  had  made  it  too  strong!  In  fact,  if 
we  may  trust  the  accounts  of  eye  and  ear  witnesses  of  the  occasion, 
the  effect  of  the  reading  was  marked.  Even  the  Emperor  was  visibly 
impressed,  probably  by  the  way  in  which  he  saw  it  was  received  by  the 
Catholic  notables,  though  he  may  have  read  the  Latin  copy  that  was 
handed  him;  and  he  is  reported  to  have  exclaimed,  "Would  that 
such  doctrine  were  preached  throughout  the  whole  world."  Duke 
William  of  Bavaria,  then  the  most  influential  of  the  Catholic  princes, 
said  to  the  Elector  of  Saxony,  "Heretofore,  we  have  not  been  so  in- 
formed of  this  matter  and  doctrine."  To  Dr.  Eck,  Luther's  old  an- 
tagonist, and  the  leading  Catholic  theologian  at  the  Diet,  Duke  William 
said,  "You  have  assured  us  that  the  Lutherans  could  easily  be  refuted. 
How  is  it  now?"  Eck  replied,  "With  the  Fathers  it  can  be  done,  but 
not  with  the  Scriptures."  "Then,"  retorted  the  Duke,  "I  understand 
that  the  Lutherans  stand  on  the  Scriptures,  and  we  Catholics  outside 
of  them."  i 

A  confutation  of  the  Confession  was,  by  order  of  the  Emperor,  pre- 
pared by  Eck,  assisted  by  Faber,  Cochlseus  and  others.  One  of  their 
chief  contentions  was  that  certain  of  the  assertions  of  the  Confession  were 
notoriously  untrue.2  For  example,  that  the  Lutherans  had  not  abolished 
the  mass,  but  retained  it  and  celebrated  it  with  utmost  reverence.  The 
Catholic  theologians  had  no  difficulty  in  showing  from  Luther's  writings 
how  he  had  many  times  rejected  the  mass  and  denied  its  sacrificial 
efficacy,  declaring  that  there  was  as  much  difference  between  the  mass 
and  the  true  sacrament  as  between  darkness  and  light,  between  the 
devil  and  God.  The  claim  of  the  Lutherans  that  they  retained  confession 
was  equally  opposed  to  fact;  the  Catholics  proved  that  for  years  the 
Lutherans  had  not  practiced  confession,  as  the  Roman  Church  under- 
stood it.  But  the  first  draft  of  the  Confutation,  though  effective  in  its 
polemics,  was  so  violent  hi  tone  that  the  Emperor  refused  to  receive  it, 
and  returned  it  to  his  theologians  for  revision. 

After  being  several  times  recommitted  and  revised,  the  Confutation 
was  publicly  read,  in  the  same  place  as  the  Confession  and  before  a 

1Walch,  16:  1046. 

2  Acto  et  Scripta,  p.  208.  Cochlseus  included  in  his  history  some  of  the  re- 
jected matter  of  the  first  draft  of  the  Confutation. 


THE  AUGSBURG  DIET  AND  THE  CONFESSION        327 

similar  gathering,  August  3d.1  It  seemed  to  the  Lutherans  scholastic 
and  puerile,  as  well  as  violent,  but  the  Emperor  would  not  permit  them 
to  have  a  copy  save  under  conditions  that  they  refused.  He  declared, 
however,  that  he  would  abide  by  the  Confutation,  and  demanded  that 
the  Lutherans  should  yield  and  accept  the  teachings  of  the  Church  and 
the  authority  of  the  Pope.  To  this  demand,  Melanchthon,  speaking 
for  his  party,  said,  with  as  much  bravery  as  Luther  had  shown  at  Worms, 
"  We  cannot  yield,  or  desert  the  truth.  We  pray  that  for  God's  sake  and 
Christ's  our  opponents  will  grant  us  that  which  we  cannot  surrender  with 
a  good  conscience."  It  would  have  been  well  for  Melanchthon  and  for 
the  cause  that  he  represented,  if  he  could  always  have  maintained  that 
spirit. 

The  contemptuous  opinions  of  the  Confutation  expressed  in  private 
by  all  the  Lutherans  do  i\ot  seem  justified  by  the  document  itself,  and 
perhaps  were  due  in  part  to  the  fact  that  they  judged  it  hastily  from  hear- 
ing it  read  once.  It  is  concise  and  clear,  moderate  in  tone  and  appeals  to 
Scripture  (mostly  the  Old  Testament,  it  is  true)  quite  as  often  and  quite 
as  successfully  as  the  Confession  itself.  And  the  Lutherans  were  not 
in  a  position  to  object  to  the  use  made  of  the  Scriptures,  because  they 
themselves  quoted  the  Old  Testament  and  the  Jewish  ritual,  whenever 
it  would  serve  their  own  purpose.  As  a  statement  and  defense  of  the  doc- 
trines and  practices  of  the  Catholic  Church,  the  Confutation  is  not  inferior 
in  clearness,  precision  and  cogency  to  the  Confession;  and  the  uniform 
maintenance  of  the  contrary  opinion  by  Lutheran  writers  to  this  day 
must  be  ascribed  solely  to  sectarian  prejudice  and  conceit.  In  brief 
it  may  be  said  that  the  Confutation  entirely  approves  articles  i,  iii,  viii, 
ix,  xiii,  xiv,  xvi,  xvii,  xviii,  and  xix  of  Part  I;  gives  a  qualified  approval 
to  iv,  v,  vi,  vii,  x,  xi,  xii,  and  xv,  while  rejecting  certain  specified  phrases 
or  clauses  of  these.  Only  two  articles  of  the  first  Part  are  totally  re- 
jected: xx  and  xxi.  The  whole  of  Part  II  is  rejected,  on  the  ground  that 
what  the  Lutherans  declare  an  abuse  is  not  an  abuse.  The  issue  between 
the  two  parties  was  thus  clearly  joined. 

But  there  were  other  parties  represented  in  the  Diet  besides  Lutherans 
and  Papists,  who  were  compelled  to  speak  for  themselves.  It  is  almost 
incredible  that  the  very  moment  they  were  thus  standing  bravely  for 
what  they  believed  to  be  God's  truth,  and  pleading  for  their  rights  of 
conscience  against  the  Catholic  majority,  was  the  time  chosen  by  Melanch- 
thon and  the  Lutheran  princes  for  another  exhibition  of  their  bigotry 
and  intolerance.  It  is  no  pleasure  to  point  out  these  things,  but  an  honest 
historian  has  no  option  in  the  matter — he  cannot  ignore  or  conceal 

1  The  text  of  the  Confutation  may  be  found  in  German  in  Walch,  16:  1026  seq. 
English  version  in  Jacobs,  "Concord,"  2:  209  seq. 


328  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

important  facts  and  remain  honest.  And  this  is  certainly  a  fact  of 
importance:  four  free  imperial  cities,  besides  the  two  that  actually  signed 
the  Confession,  wished  to  sign  but  were  not  permitted.  The  delegates 
of  Strassburg,  Constance,  Memmingen  and  Lindau  were  excluded  from 
the  Lutheran  conferences  and  not  allowed  to  unite  with  the  others  in 
a  statement  of  doctrine.  Melanchthon  was  feverishly  anxious  to  conciliate 
the  Catholics;  he  held  that  it  had  been  a  great  blunder  to  permit  the 
Zwinglians  to  sign  the  Protest  at  Speyer,  and  he  had  no  notion  of  re- 
peating the  mistake  at  Augsburg.  Since  he  remained  firm  in  that  po- 
sition, and  the  Lutheran  princes  accepted  his  advice,  the  four  cities 
had  no  recourse  but  to  draw  up  a  separate  confession  of  their  own.  This 
Bucer  did,  with  the  aid  of  Capito  and  Hedio,  and  a  statement  in  twenty- 
three  articles  was  hastily  composed  and  presented  to  the  Emperor, 
which  is  known  as  the  Tetrapolitan  Confession.1  This  document  the 
Emperor  did  not  consider  of  enough  importance  to  be  read  publicly, 
but  he  was  graciously  pleased  to  accept  a  copy  in  private,  and  his  Catholic 
theologians  prepared  a  Confutation  of  this  also,  which  was  read  in  the 
Diet  October  24th.  In  this  way  Charles  showed  his  keen  sense  of  justice 
and  fair  play. 

The  Emperor  prohibited  the  publication  of  both  the  Confession  and 
the  Confutation,  and  the  latter  document  was  not  printed  until  many 
years  later  (1579).  All  that  could  be  learned  of  it  by  Melanchthon, 
who  could  not  be  present  at  the  reading,  was  from  notes  made  by  the 
Protestants  who  heard  it.  By  putting  these  together  he  learned  the 
main  points,  and  proceeded  to  prepare  an  Apology  or  defense  of  the 
Confession.  This  was  offered  to  the  Emperor  on  September  22d,  but 
Charles  refused  to  receive  it,  much  less  to  have  it  read.  It  must  be 
confessed  that  he  had  some  grounds  for  this  action;  each  party  had  had 
opportunity  to  present  its  views,  and  to  permit  a  reply  by  the  Lutherans 
was  to  obligate  himself  to  hear  the  Catholics  again,  and  so  on  ad  infinitum. 
When  the  Emperor  promised  that  every  man's  opinion  should  be  heard 
in  love  and  kindness,  he  cannot  be  held  to  have  committed  himself  to 
the  permission  of  an  interminable  controversy.  But  in  spite  of  the 
Emperor's  attempt  thus  to  confine  the  disputes  within  limits,  and  in 
defiance  of  his  prohibition  of  publication,  no  fewer  than  six  unauthorized 
editions  of  the  Confession  appeared  within  a  few  weeks.  Inasmuch  as 
all  the  harm  possible  had  now  been  done,  and  deeming  it  better  that  a 
correct  text  should  supersede  these  copies  that  contradicted  at  many 
points  both  the  original  text  and  each  other,  Melanchthon  on  his  return  to 
Wittenberg  caused  an  edition  to  be  printed,  copies  of  which  reached 

1  Text  in  German  in  Niemeyer,  pp.  740-770;  Forstemann  prints  both  Latin  and 
German  texts,  2:  21  seq.;  English  text  in  Jacobs,  "Concord,"  2:  180  seq. 


THE  AUGSBURG  DIET  AND  THE  CONFESSION        329 

Augsburg  before  the  final  adjournment  of  the  Diet.  In  the  following 
April  (1531),  both  the  Confession  and  the  Apology  were  published  at 
Wittenberg,  a  copy  of  which,  dedicated  to  Luther  in  Melanchthon's  own 
hand,  is  now  preserved  in  the  royal  library  at  Dresden. 

Charles  did  not  cease  to  hope  and  labor  for  union.  We  have  already 
noted  his  political  and  military  embarrassments,  as  well  as  his  ambitious 
projects;  he  really  stood  in  need  of  a  generous  subsidy  of  men  and  money 
from  this  Diet,  for  his  campaign  against  the  Turks,  and  this  could  only 
be  obtained,  it  appeared,  if  the  religious  controversy  could  be  brought 
to  some  sort  of  peaceable  settlement.  Deeper  than  this  was  the  real 
cause  of  the  hesitation  of  Charles  to  employ  force:  he  could  not  depend 
on  his  Catholic  nobles  to  support  him  in  a  religious  war.  Princes  like 
George  of  Saxony  and  William  of  Bavaria,  especially  the  latter,  were 
quite  as  jealous  of  the  Habsburgs  as  they  were  angry  at  the  Lutherans; 
and  they  had  a  well-founded  suspicion  that  the  chief  result  of  a  war 
of  religion  would  be  to  increase  the  prerogatives  and  power  of  the  Em- 
peror at  the  expense  of  the  princely  oligarchy.  Restoration  of  unity 
to  the  Church  was  uncertain  and  in  any  case  would  be  quite  incidental. 
However  much  they  desired  the  latter,  they  were  resolved  to  do  nothing 
to  promote  the  former.  This  jealousy  paralyzed  both  Church  and  Empire 
at  this  critical  moment. 

Charles  and  his  Catholic  supporters  were  therefore  a  unit  in  proposing 
a  conference,  in  which  the  difficulties  in  the  way  of  union  might  possibly 
be  overcome.  On  August  16th  representative  theologians  of  both  sides 
began  to  debate  the  points  in  dispute,  taking  the  Confession  as  a  basis. 
The  larger  body  was  afterwards  reduced  to  a  smaller.  For  the  Catholics 
Eck,  Wimpina  and  Cochlaeus  now  showed  themselves  as  reasonable 
and  conciliatory  as  Melanchthon,  Brenz  and  Schnepff  for  the  Protestants. 
On  the  doctrinal  articles,  Part  I  of  the  Confession,  mutual  concessions 
were  made,  one  after  another,  until  only  on  three  points  was  there  ir- 
reconcilable disagreement:  first,  how  far  good  works  are  meritorious; 
second,  on  the  necessity  of  canonical  penances  to  the  full  forgiveness 
of  sins;  third,  on  the  invocation  of  saints,  which  the  Protestants  persisted 
in  holding  "a  doubtful  and  dangerous  thing,"  not  commanded  by  the 
Scriptures  and  leading  to  great  and  perilous  abuses.  It  was  generally 
admitted  by  the  Catholic  theologians  that  considerable  latitude  on  such 
points  had  always  been  tolerated  in  the  Church.  Cardinal  Campeggio, 
the  papal  legate,  was  inclined  to  regard  the  doctrinal  differences  as 
only  a  dispute  about  words.  Nevertheless,  the  net  result  of  these  de- 
bates was  that  the  Lutherans  had  practically  surrendered  their  doctrine 
on  justification  and  the  eucharist,  for  the  sake  of  unity. 

With  regard  to  Part  II  of  the  Confession,  concerning  the  abuses  hi 


330  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

the  Church,  and  the  practical  reforms  instituted  by  the  princes,  the  diffi- 
culties proved  to  be  both  more  numerous  and  more  serious.  Even  here, 
however,  the  Catholics  were  ready  to  admit  that  there  had  been  great 
abuses  and  corresponding  need  of  reform.  The  Protestants,  on  their 
part,  were  ready  to  concede  that  they  might  have  gone  too  fast  and  too 
far,  and  that  much  of  the  old  order  might  be  restored.  The  theologians 
on  the  Lutheran  side  were  willing  to  concede  the  restoration  of  the  episco- 
pate, fasts  and  festivals;  but  they  demanded  the  eucharist  in  both  kinds, 
and  the  marriage  of  priests,  and  refused  to  reestablish  private  masses. 
The  Catholics  consented  to  recognize  the  marriages  already  contracted, 
but  insisted  that  none  should  be  tolerated  for  the  future.  They  demanded 
restoration  of  the  cloisters;  the  Protestants  refused  this,  but  were  willing 
not  to  interfere  with  what  remained.  On  several  of  these  points,  the 
most  important  of  all,  the  differences  were  found  to  be  irreconcilable. 

What  threatened  to  be  a  fatal  blow  to  the  Protestant  cause  was  a 
private  negotiation  with  Campeggio  begun  by  Melanchthon.  On  July 
6th  he  wrote  a  letter  in  which  he  said:  "We  have  no  doctrine  that  divides 
us  from  the  Roman  Church,  and  are  ready  to  obey  it,  if  it  will  leave 
free  course  to  pure  doctrine.  We  honor  the  Roman  Church  and  the  whole 
government  of  the  Church;  if  the  Pope  only  would  not  condemn  us, 
unification  might  easily  be  accomplished.  The  whole  trouble  is  about 
an  insignificant  departure  from  custom.  The  rules  of  the  Church  are  not 
opposed  to  prevailing  unity  in  the  Church,  along  with  diversity  in  such 
things."  *  On  the  following  day  he  wrote:  "Provided  a  few  things  are 
condoned  or  dissimulated,  peace  can  be  concluded,  to  wit,  if  to  us  both 
kinds  are  permitted  in  the  Lord's  Supper  and  the  marriage  of  priests  and 
monks  is  tolerated."  It  is  not  wonderful  that  the  Niirnbergers,  becoming 
aware  of  this,  declared  that  Melanchthon  was  acting  childishly  and 
added  indignantly:  "At  this  Diet  there  is  no  man  who  until  now  has 
caused  the  Gospel  more  shame  than  Philip."  2 

It  is  hardly  possible  altogether  to  excuse  Melanchthon's  pusillanimous 
and  vacillating  conduct,  but  a  little  consideration  of  certain  facts  tends 
somewhat  to  palliate  his  error.  He  had  come  to  Augsburg  full  of  the 
idea  that  a  compromise  with  the  Romanists  was  possible,  if  the  Lutherans 
held  aloof  from  the  Zwinglians.  Then,  as  later,  he  was  personally 
indifferent  to  the  ceremonial  side  of  religion,  if  only  liberty  to  preach 
the  Gospel  was  secured.  He  believed  sincerely  that  the  Catholic  wrath 
against  the  Lutherans  was  mainly  due  to  the  innovations  the  latter 
had  made  in  the  ancient  rites  of  the  Church,  and  he  was  ready  to  undo 
much  of  what  had  been  accomplished,  for  the  sake  of  peace.  He  thought 

^R,  2:  169  seq.     Cf.  letter  of  August  4,  CR,  2:  246. 

2  Quoted  by  Gieseler,  5:  147,  note.  Baumgartner's  letter  in  full,  under  date 
of  September  13,  in  Walch,  16:  1782. 


THE  AUGSBURG  DIET  AND  THE  CONFESSION        331 

it  possible  for  the  Catholics  to  concede  two  points  of  discipline,  which 
had  never  been  matters  of  faith:  communion  in  both  kinds  and  the 
marriage  of  priests.  With  these  concessions  he  was  personally  content, 
and,  these  granted,  he  was  ready  to  see  all  things  made  as  they  were 
before  the  Theses.  But  in  return  for  this  he  would  insist  that  liberty 
to  teach  pure  doctrine  according  to  the  Scriptures  should  be  conceded 
by  the  Church. 

Luther  did  not  agree  with  those  who  thought  Melanchthon  a  traitor. 
Why  should  he?  He  had  himself  said  almost  identical  things  more 
than  once.  He  had  written  to  his  prince:  "It  is  dangerous  to  disturb 
the  old  order  if  there  are  no  significant  and  important  causes  for  it, 
and  even  if  the  Pope  were  an  Antichrist  we  could  live  under  him,  even 
as  the  Israelites  under  Pharaoh,  if  he  would  only  not  oppose  the  pure 
doctrine  of  God  and  the  use  of  the  Holy  Scriptures."  And  with  his 
own  hand  he  appended  to  Melanchthon's  treatise  on  the  power  of  the 
Pope:  "If  the  Pope  would  allow  this,  we  Lutherans  would  defend  his 
doctrines  and  privileges  better  and  stronger  than  the  Emperor  and  the 
whole  world;  for  we  would  do,  without  the  aid  of  the  sword,  by  the  Word 
and  power  of  God,  what  the  Emperor  with  the  fist,  without  the  Word 
and  power  of  God,  cannot  do."  x  He  now  on  the  one  hand  defended 
Melanchthon  from  unjust  accusations,  while  at  the  same  time  he  tried 
to  breathe  into  that  timid  and  irresolute  soul  something  of  his  own  trust 
and  courage. 

Luther,  in  fact,  never  showed  to  better  advantage  than  during  these 
trying  days  of  seclusion  and  uncertainty  at  Coburg.  He  was  at  his 
best  in  times  of  storm  and  stress,  when  his  native  courage  and  his  trust 
in  God  made  him  cheerful  though  others  could  see  no  ray  of  hope.2  It 
was  at  this  time,  according  to  his  contemporaries,  that  he  composed 
the  battle-hymn  of  the  Reformation,  Bin'  feste  Burg  ist  wiser  Gott — 
the  words  certainly  are  his,  perhaps  the  music  also.  And  though  later 
researches  have  thrown  doubt  on  the  accuracy  of  these  statements, 
and  point  to  its  composition  several  years  earlier,  it  must  be  granted 
that  there  is  a  singular  coincidence  between  this  Marseillaise  of  the 
Reformation,  as  Heine  called  it,  and  the  letters  written  by  Luther  from 
Coburg.  In  one  respect  this  is  his  greatest  contribution  to  the  cause 
of  the  Reformation;  it  was  and  is  a  trumpet-call  to  faith  and  courage 
and  endurance.  Small  wonder  that  the  troops  of  Gustavus  Adolphus 

i  CR,  2:  318. 

*  Among  Luther's  troubles  at  Coburg  was  the  death  of  his  father.  A  com- 
panion wrote  to  Catherine  Luther:  "When  he  read  Reinecke's  letter  he  said  to 
me,  'My  father  is  dead.'  And  then  he  took  his  Psalter  and  went  to  his  room  and 
wept  so  much  that  for  two  days  he  could  not  work.  Since  then  he  has  not  given 
way  to  his  grief  any  more."  Letter  of  Veit  Dietrich,  June  19th.  Cf.  Luther's  letter 
to  Melanchthon,  of  June  5th,  De  Wette,  4:  32. 


332  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

went  into  action  singing  this  hymn;  but  a  better  title  to  our  admir- 
ing remembrance  of  it  is  the  nobler  service  it  has  done  in  many  a 
spiritual  conflict,  inspiring  the  followers  of  Christ  to  victory  on  fields  the 
more  glorious  because  they  were  bloodless. 

The  wily  papal  legate  pretended  for  a  time  to  fall  in  with  Melanch- 
thon's  ideas,  but  soon  threw  off  the  mask,  and  again  insisted  on  the  old 
terms  of  Rome,  "Submit,  recant."  The  conferences,  public  and  private, 
came  to  nothing  and  the  Saxon  theologian  ate  all  his  humble  pie  in 
vain.  To  one  who  reads  the  account  of  these  tedious  and  fruitless 
negotiations,  in  which  so  much  was  at  stake  on  both  sides,  the  inquiry 
naturally  suggests  itself,  Why,  after  all,  did  they  fail?  The  success  of  the 
Emperor's  policy  of  pacification,  on  which  he  had  set  his  heart  and  in  a 
manner  staked  his  future,  demanded  a  favorable  result.  All  parties 
had,  seemingly,  more  to  gain  from  unity  than  from  disunion.  The  an- 
swer appears  to  be  that  not  one  thing  merely,  but  several  things, 
prevented  a  compromise. 

In  the  first  place,  Luther  was  unalterably  opposed  to  it.  Even  had 
Melanchthon  succeeded  in  arranging  definite  terms,  it  would  have  been 
at  the  cost  of  concessions  to  which  the  real  leader  of  the  movement 
would  never  have  given  his  consent.1  Though  in  retirement,  and  much 
of  the  time  kept  in  ignorance  of  what  was  going  on,  Luther  was  the  one 
factor  in  the  problem  that  could  not  possibly  be  ignored.  And  although  he 
defended  his  friend  against  accusers,  he  was  far  from  approving  all  that 
his  colleague  had  done,  and  he  had  no  idea  of  yielding  as  much  as  had 
been  proposed.  When  the  memorandum  of  tentative  agreement  reached 
by  the  theologians  was  submitted  to  him,  by  direction  of  the  Elector, 
he  returned  a  series  of  severe  criticisms  upon  it.2  He  wrote  to  Jonas, 
September  20th:  "If  we  yield  to  a  single  one  of  their  conditions  ...  we 
deny  our  whole  doctrine  and  confirm  theirs.  ...  I  would  not  yield  an  inch 
to.  these  proud  men,  seeing  how  they  play  upon  our  weakness.  ...  I  am 
almost  bursting  with  anger  and  indignation.  Pray  break  off  all  transac- 
tions at  once  and  return  hither.  They  have  our  Confession  and  they 
have  the  Gospel.  If  they  wish  let  them  hear  those  witnesses;  if  not, 
let  them  depart  to  their  own  place.  If  war  follows  it  will  follow;  we 
have  prayed  and  done  enough."  ! 

There  are  two  other  good  reasons  why  the  negotiations  were  fore- 
doomed to  failure:  the  Pope  and  the  princes.  To  these  attempted  agree- 
ments and  compromises  the  Pope  was  not  a  party,  and  he  would  have 

1  On  August  26th,  Luther  wrote  his  ultimatum  to  Justus  Jonas,  whose  firmness 
he  could  trust  better  than  Melanchthon 's  :  "Contend  manfully  and  yield  nothing 
to  our  adversaries,  unless  they  prove  it  by  evident  Scripture."  De  Wette,  4:  148. 

»Walch,  16:  1407,  dated  August  26th. 

»  De  Wette,  4:  169. 


THE  AUGSBURG  DIET  AND  THE  CONFESSION        333 

been  in  no  way  bound  by  them  had  they  been  brought  to  a  successful 
issue.  The  result  would  have  been  a  restoration  of  papal  and  episcopal 
power  in  Germany,  with  no  guarantee  that  the  powers  would  not  be 
as  much  abused  in  the  future  as  in  the  past,  and  with  every  probability 
that  they  would  be.  This  the  Protestants  were  not  so  blind  as  not  to 
see.  Not  only  so,  the  Pope  was  determined  to  keep  a  free  hand.  Cam- 
peggio  reported  to  the  Curia  during  the  negotiations  that  the  five  chief 
demands  of  the  Protestants  were:  the  Lord's  Supper  in  both  kinds;  the 
marriage  of  the  clergy;  the  omission  of  the  canon  in  the  mass;  the  re- 
taining of  the  confiscated  Church  property;  and  the  calling  of  a  council. 
In  a  consistory  held  July  6th,  it  was  decided  to  yield  nothing.1 

Melanchthon's  letters  will  be  searched  in  vain  for  any  mention  of  the 
demand  italicized  above,  yet  it  was  the  crux  of  the  whole  situation.  We 
may  assume,  with  no  great  danger  of  error,  that  the  princes  would  have 
consented  to  almost  any  statement  of  doctrine  that  their  theologians 
might  have  agreed  upon  with  the  Catholics,  and  would  have  interposed 
no  obstinate  objection  to  any  concessions  similarly  made  regarding  the 
rites  of  the  Church.  One  cannot  believe  that  they  would  have  stood  out 
even  for  communion  hi  both  kinds,  against  the  advice  of  their  theolo- 
gians. But  to  part  with  the  episcopal  jurisdiction  they  had  assumed 
and  for  some  years  exercised  was  another  question;  they  would  have  op- 
posed this  strenuously,  and  it  is  doubtful  if  they  could  have  been  per- 
suaded to  yield  it.  And  there  is  no  doubt  whatever  that  it  would  have 
been  quite  impossible  to  persuade  them  to  restore  the  confiscated  Church 
property — nothing  but  force  would  have  been  able  to  accomplish  that. 
What  a  German  prince  once  got,  he  kept  until  it  was  taken  from 
him.  Here,  if  nowhere  else,  negotiations  for  peace  were  certain  to  be 
wrecked,  for  the  Catholic  party  had  not  yet  resigned  itself  to  the  loss 
of  these  great  possessions. 

How  shameful  a  scandal  the  rapacity  and  greed  of  the  princes  had 
been,  we  gather  from  the  contemporary  documents,  which  most  Protestant 
historians  have  ignored.  The  spiritual  princes  complained  to  the  Diet 
in  terms  like  these:  "The  adherents  of  the  new  doctrines  have  demolished 
a  vast  number  of  churches  and  edifices  of  divine  worship,  and  have  em- 
ployed altars,  gravestones  and  other  sacred  monuments  in  the  fortification 
of  their  castles  and  town  walls;  they  have  suppressed  pious  foundations, 
anniversaries  and  other  religious  provisions,  and  confiscated  the  revenues; 
monstrances,  chalices,  sacred  vestments,  reliquaries  and  other  articles 
of  worship  they  have  sold  by  public  auction;  they  have  mutilated  and 
burnt  images  and  crucifixes.  .  .  .  They  subject  all  the  hospitals  and  other 
such  ecclesiastical  institutions  to  their  secular  control  and  administra- 

i  Pallavicini,  Hist.  Conctt.  Trid.,  iii:  4, 3. 


334  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

tion." 1  But  a  few  months  preceding  the  Diet,  Margrave  George  of  Bran- 
denburg, a  bright  and  shining  light  among  the  reformers,  had  despoiled 
all  the  churches  and  cloisters  in  his  domains  of  all  their  vessels  of  gold  and 
silver  and  sold  them,  using  50,000  florins  of  the  proceeds  to  pay  the  gam- 
bling debts  and  other  liabilities  of  his  deceased  brother,  Casimir.  Luther 
wrote  to  Spalatin  that  the  plunder  of  the  Saxon  monasteries  tore  his 
heart,2  and  Melanchthon  complained  that  "many  who  wish  to  be  thought 
quite  evangelical  pounce  upon  the  property  consecrated  to  the  support 
of  the  pastors,  preachers,  schools,  churches,  so  that  in  the  end  we  shall 
become  heathen."3 

Even  more  determined  was  the  opposition  of  the  cities  to  the  proposed 
restoration  of  episcopal  power.  Melanchthon,  who  was  in  a  position 
to  know,  attributes  to  this  the  failure  of  the  negotiations  at  this  point. 
He  himself  had  strenuously  urged  the  restoration  of  episcopal  authority 
as  the  only  practical  way  to  heal  the  schism,  and  as  necessary  to 
prevent  all  sorts  of  disorder.  Moreover,  it  was  necessary  in  order 
to  protect  the  clergy  from  the  tyranny  of  officials  of  court  and  state.4 
"You  can  have  no  notion,"  he  writes  to  Luther,  "how  much  odium 
I  have  incurred  from  the  Niirnbergers,  and  from  I  know  not  how  many 
others,  on  account  of  the  jurisdiction  conceded  to  the  bishops.  It  is  not 
for  the  Gospel  that  our  colleagues  are  contending,  but  for  power  and 
dominion.  These  people,  having  grown  wonted  to  liberty,  and  having 
shaken  off  the  episcopal  yoke,  are  unwilling  to  have  the  old  yoke  put 
on  again.  The  imperial  cities  are  especially  bitter  in  their  opposition 
to  episcopal  rule.  They  do  not  care  a  fig  for  religion;  their  only  concern 
is  to  be  freed  from  the  control  of  the  bishops."  5  Once  in  a  while  Mel- 
anchthon forgot  himself  and  told  the  plain,  unadulterated  truth,  as  he 
saw  it.  The  Niirnberg  senate  objected  to  the  proposed  restoration  of 
the  bishops  on  these  grounds:  "Should  this  article  be  established,  then 
no  more  subtle  and  direct  way  of  utterly  wiping  out  the  Gospel  in  a 
short  time  could  be  thought  of.  For  if,  as  heretofore,  the  bishops  should 
have  full  power  over  the  priests;  if  the  bishops,  by  virtue  of  their  episcopal 
authority,  are  to  be  able,  unhindered,  to  punish  delinquent  priests; 
if  the  pastors  and  priests  are  to  be  presented  to  the  bishops,  as  this  article 

i  Quoted  by  Janssen,  5:  274  seq. 

»De  Wette,  3:  147. 

8  Unterricht  Melanchthons  wider  die  Lehre  der  Wiedertduffer,  Wittenberg,  1528. 

«  "How  could  we  dare  take  away  the  power  of  the  bishops,  if  they  only  allowed 
free  course  to  pure  doctrine?  To  express  plainly  what  I  think  of  this,  I  say  that 
I  would  not  confirm  the  episcopal  power,  but  establish  a  new  episcopal  control, 
as  I  see  what  kind  of  a  Church  we  shall  have  if  their  administration  is  abolished." 
Melanchthon  to  Camerarius,  CR,  2:  334;  and  cf.  259,  362,  622,  628,  964. 

6  CR,  2:  326,  328.  Aleander  wrote  in  similar  vein  to  the  Curia  from  Regensburg, 
March  14,  1532:  "The  plebeians  in  the  Catholic  cities  look  with  envy  on  the 
power  that  the  plebeians  in  the  heretical  free  cities  have  acquired,  so  that  they 
too  are  bitter  with  the  spirit  of  insurrection."  Quoted  by  Janssen,  5:  393. 


THE  AUGSBURG  DIET  AND  THE  CONFESSION        335 

unqualifiedly  proposes,  without  any  limitation  of  the  episcopal  power, 
what  else  will  follow,  or  what  is  to  be  expected,  except  that  the  bishops 
will  never  permit  a  truly  Christian  pastor  to  be  presented?"  This 
was  by  no  means  the  only  case  in  which  the  sturdy  firmness  of  the  cities 
saved  the  Reformation  from  failure. 

It  must  be  acknowledged  that  Campeggio  was  one  of  the  barriers  to 
peaceful  compromise.  In  his  confidential  letters  to  the  Curia,  he  urges 
repeatedly  that  force  is  the  sole  remedy  for  the  troubles  in  Germany. 
To  negotiate  with  the  Protestants  is  only  to  waste  time  and  help  them 
become  stronger.  The  one  thing  to  do,  is  for  the  Emperor  to  cut  the 
proceedings  short  and  compel  the  princes  to  submit.  That  there  might 
be  certain  difficulties  in  this  course  seems  never  to  have  occurred  to 
the  papal  legate,  but  it  certainly  occurred  to  Charles,  who  kept  his  temper 
wonderfully  through  these  scenes,  pressed  as  he  was  by  unreasonable 
demands  from  several  quarters.  But  there  was  something  at  stake 
that  both  parties  kept  carefully  out  of  sight  and  never  so  much  as  men- 
tioned: the  whole  controversy  between  Protestants  and  Catholics,  stripped 
of  its  irrelevant  details,  was  a  question  of  the  infallibility  of  the  Church, 
and  its  divinely  instituted  function  of  saving  men  through  a  priesthood 
and  sacraments.  The  Catholics  could  surrender  anything  but  this,  and 
by  accepting  it  the  Protestants  surrendered  everything.  Compromise 
and  reunion  were  impossible  words. 

Recognizing  this  fact  at  last,  the  majority  of  the  Diet  proposed  a  recess 
providing  that  the  Protestants  should  be  allowed  fifteen  days  to  consider 
whether  they  would  submit,  and  threatening  forcible  measures  in  case 
of  their  continued  contumacy.2  The  princes  and  fourteen  cities  pre- 
pared and  signed  a  second  Protest3  against  this  action — even  Augsburg- 
refused  the  recess.  On  the  following  day  the  Elector  and  Melanchthon 
left  Augsburg,  and  a  few  days  later  Melanchthon  was  at  home  in  Witten- 
berg. Charles  is  said  to  have  remarked  reproachfully,  as  he  bade  the 
Elector  adieu,  "  Uncle,  uncle,  I  did  not  expect  this  from  you."  He 
then  had  reason  to  fear  that  the  religious  dissension  would  prevent  any 
subsidy  against  the  Turks,  as  the  Protestant  princes  might  be  expected  to 
hold  aloof. 

The  Protestant  princes  generally  followed  this  example,  if  they  had 
not  anticipated  it,4  and  Charles  was  left  with  the  Catholic  members  to 

»  Quoted  by  Richards,  p.  176. 

'For  the  first  recess,  see  Walch,  16:  1531.    It  is  dated  September  22d 

'Walch,  16:  1534,  1546,  1562. 

4  Philip  of  Hesse  had  secretly  left  more  than  a  month  before  (August  6th),  and 
there  had  ever  since  been  disquieting  rumors  that  he  had  concluded  an  alliance 
with  the  Swiss  (which  was  true)  and  was  raising  an  army  against  the  Emperor 
and  the  Catholics  (which  was  quite  untrue).  These  rumors  may  have  had  some- 
thing to  do  with  the  conciliatory  attitude  of  the  Catholics  during  August,  until 
time  had  reassured  them. 


336  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

complete  the  business  of  the  Diet.  A  revised  form  of  the  recess  wag 
prepared,  adopted,  and  proclaimed  under  date  of  November  19th.  It 
repeats  with  little  change  what  the  Emperor  had  said  in  his  summons 
of  his  desire  to  hear  all  parties,  in  order  to  restore  peace  and  unity  to 
the  Church  and  Empire,  and  recites  the  proceedings  of  the  Diet.  It 
recalls  the  preliminary  recess,  and  the  fact  that  the  Protestants  had 
been  granted  fifteen  days  for  consideration,  but  had  refused  obedience. 
Accordingly,  the  time  has  been  extended  to  April  15th,  after  which,  if 
they  do  not  submit,  they  will  be  dealt  with  according  to  the  law  of  the 
Empire.  The  Emperor  has  entered  into  a  compact  with  his  loyal  Es- 
tates "to  stand  by  the  true  and  ancient  faith  and  to  protect  the  same." 
The  errors  of  the  Protestants  were  then  enumerated,  and  it  was  decreed : 
Only  such  preachers  were  to  be  admitted  thenceforth  to  pulpits  as  were 
approved  by  the  bishops  for  doctrine,  character  and  ability;  all  married 
priests  were  to  be  suspended  until  they  had  put  away  their  wives  and 
received  absolution;  strict  supervision  was  to  be  exercised  over  printers 
and  publishers,  and  nothing  must  be  published  without  proper  sanc- 
tion; all  bishoprics,  cloisters  and  churches  that  had  been  confiscated 
and  plundered  were  to  be  restored,  and  all  clerics,  monks  and  nuns 
were  to  be  restored  to  their  possessions,  while  those  yet  unmolested 
were  not  to  be  disturbed,  under  penalty  of  the  ban;  the  Emperor  would 
arrange  with  the  Pope  that  a  general  council  should  be  called  within 
six  months  after  the  close  of  the  Diet,  which  should  be  held  within  a 
year  at  longest  from  the  summons;  and  finally,  "that  no  one,  whether 
he  belong  to  the  lay  or  to  the  clerical  order,  shall  do  violence  to  an- 
other, or  oppress  him,  or  make  war  upon  him,  on  account  of  his  re- 
ligious beliefs;  nor  deprive  him  of  his  lawful  rents,  fines,  tithes  or  other 
possessions."  Failure  to  comply  with  these  provisions  was  made  pun- 
ishable under  the  terms  of  the  Worms  Landfriede;  and  any  person  vio- 
lating them  might  be  proceeded  against  in  the  imperial  Fiscal  Court.1 

This  was  a  shrewd  blow  at  the  Reformation.  As  the  Romanists 
themselves  put  it  pithily,  they  had  decided  nicht  fechten,  sondern  rechten — 
not  to  fight  but  to  sue  their  antagonists.  No  more  aggressive  proceeding 
against  the  Protestants  could  have  been  devised.  The  great  wealth  of 
the  Church  had  led  the  princes  and  cities  to  plunder  it  right  and  left. 
Out  of  the  enormous  wealth  thus  seized,  a  poor  and  inadequate  pro- 
vision was  made  for  the  support  of  the  parish  clergy  and  the  parish 
schools,  but  in  so  niggardly  a  fashion  that  often  Luther  and  the  other 
reformers  were  moved  to  righteous  anger.  All  the  circumstances  urge 
us  to  the  conclusion  that  it  was  this  great  opportunity  for  self-enrich- 
ment, and  not  any  real  zeal  for  evangelical  truth,  that  led  most  of  the 

1  This  second  recess  is  in  Walch,  16:  1596. 


THE  AUGSBURG  DIET  AND  THE  CONFESSION        337 

princes  to  join  the  Lutheran  movement.  The  free  cities  were  equally 
susceptible  to  the  same  temptation;  the  secularization  of  the  church  prop- 
erty relieved  the  citizens  of  the  greater  part  of  the  burden  of  taxation 
for  some  years,  and  enabled  them  to  carry  on  notable  public  improvements 
at  little  or  no  expense  to  themselves.  No  wonder  the  Reformation  was 
popular  in  the  towns,  when  men  thus  found  a  way  to  save  their  souls 
and  their  pockets  at  the  same  tune. 

And  now  they  were  not  only  threatened  that  they  must  give  up  their 
new  faith,  but  also  restore  this  wealth  unlawfully  gotten.  The  former 
they  might  have  borne;  the  latter  was  not  to  be  considered — greed 
more  than  creed  urged  them  to  stand  fast  for  the  Reformation  and  fight 
to  maintain  what  they  had  won.  A  sordid  and  unworthy  element, 
before  existing  but  unrecognized,  from  this  time  forth  becomes  visibly 
mingled  with  religious  conviction  in  the  history  of  the  Reformation. 
A  more  worthy  motive  for  retaining  the  confiscated  property  may  also 
be  discerned :  there  was  no  way  to  maintain  the  newly  organized  Lutheran 
churches,  except  out  of  the  revenues  of  the  formerly  Catholic  property, 
which  the  princes  and  towns  were  now  administering  by  virtue  of  the 
episcopal  power  that  Luther  had  taught  them  to  assume.  If  the  scheme 
unfolded  in  the  Augsburg  recess  should  be  pressed  to  its  full  capability, 
the  Reformation  would  be  undone — the  princes  and  towns  could  be 
harassed  by  such  a  multiplicity  of  legal  proceedings  and  judgments 
and  costs  as  would  be  more  than  equivalent  to  a  war  against  them. 
And  if  they  refused  obedience  to  the  decrees  of  the  imperial  court,  the 
Emperor  would  have  good  legal  ground  of  proceeding  against  them  as 
rebels  and  open  violators  of  law.  And  even  if  they  escaped  this,  with 
the  confiscated  property  gone  they  would  be  unable  to  support  the 
new  churches  from  their  own  purse,  while  the  people  would  never  submit 
to  the  additional  taxation  that  would  be  required  for  their  support. 

It  was  a  plan  as  efficient  as  it  was  simple  for  the  defeat  of  the  Refor- 
mation, and  no  small  part  of  its  strength  lay  in  its  apparent  justice. 
The  ancient  Church  was  saying:  "You  may  turn  your  backs  on  the  faith 
of  your  fathers,  if  you  will,  and  introduce  new  doctrines  and  rites;  but 
you  shall  not  plunder  the  old  Church  to  do  it.  If  you  wish  a  new  re- 
ligion, pay  the  bill.  Do  not  steal  for  your  new  faith."  The  Emperor 
had  placed  himself  in  an  impregnable  legal  position,  and  at  the  same 
time  placed  the  Protestants  in  a  position  quite  indefensible,  revolutionary 
in  fact.  This  was  the  sum  of  his  accomplishment  at  Augsburg.  In 
every  other  aspect  of  the  case,  he  must  be  reckoned  to  have  met  with 
defeat.  It  was  the  first  serious  check  in  a  hitherto  glorious  reign,  that 
had  been  marked  by  a  series  of  successes,  which  together  had  placed 
him  in  fact,  as  he  was  in  rank,  at  the  head  of  European  rulers. 


338  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

But  though  Charles  accomplished  so  little  toward  his  favorite  proj- 
ect of  pacifying  the  Empire,  he  was  more  fortunate  regarding  another 
plan  that  lay  hardly  less  close  to  his  heart.  His  brother  Ferdinand's 
attendance  at  the  Diet  has  already  been  noted;  the  object  of  this  was 
to  secure  his  ultimate  succession  to  the  imperial  dignity  and  his  imme^ 
diate  election  as  King  of  the  Germans.  He  could  then,  in  the  absence 
of  Charles,  be  an  executive  of  dignity  and  authority  who  would  make 
the  imperial  government  more  efficient.  Charles  obtained,  by  prom- 
ises or  bribes,  the  assent  of  all  the  Electors  save  the  Prince  of  Saxony, 
who  not  only  withheld  his  vote  but  refused  to  attend  the  meeting  of 
the  electoral  college.  On  account  of  the  plague  at  Frankfort,  the  election 
took  place  at  Cologne,  January  5,  1531,  and  was  followed  by  the  coro- 
nation of  Ferdinand  at  Aachen  six  days  later.  Luther  advised  his  prince 
to  attend  the  election,  and  even  to  assent  to  the  election  of  Ferdinand, 
as  a  choice  of  evils,  fearing  that  war  might  follow  the  prince's  refusal; 
but  the  Elector  persisted  and  sent  by  his  son,  John  Frederick,  a  formal 
protest  against  the  choice  of  Ferdinand.  The  customary  pledges  were 
exchanged  between  the  new  king  and  the  electoral  princes,  and  the 
latter  in  particular  agreed  to  stand  by  each  other  loyally. 

The  Protestants  now  began  for  the  first  time  to  show  some  glimmerings 
of  political  reason.  They  had  lost  the  first  and  best  opportunity  to  pro- 
vide for  their  security,  but  there  was  still  a  chance  for  them  by  uniting 
to  make  successful  resistance  to  the  Emperor  and  his  new  scheme  of 
legal  persecution.  Little  more  than  a  month  after  the  publication  of 
the  Augsburg  recess  the  Protestant  princes  and  delegates  of  towns  met 
at  the  convent  of  Schmalkald  on  the  Southwest  frontier  of  electoral 
Saxony  (Dec.  22-31).  Here  they  spent  the  season  devoted  throughout 
Christendom  to  celebrating  the  birth  of  the  Prince  of  Peace  in  devising 
plans  for  war.  Some  of  them  had  conscientious  scruples  about  bearing 
arms  against  the  Emperor,  even  in  self-defense,  but  they  had  still  greater 
objections  to  disgorging  their  confiscated  wealth.  A  tentative  league  was 
concluded  at  this  time,  in  which  the  Elector  of  Saxony,  the  Duke  of 
Liineberg,  the  Landgrave  of  Hesse,  the  Prince  of  Anhalt  and  two  Counts 
of  Mansfeld,  and  the  delegates  of  Magdeburg  and  Bremen  agreed:  "As 
soon  as  any  one  of  them  should  be  attacked  for  the  Gospel's  sake,  or  on 
account  of  any  matter  resulting  from  adherence  to  the  Gospel,  all  of  them 
would  at  once  proceed  to  the  rescue  of  the  attacked  party,  and  aid  him 
to  the  utmost  of  their  ability."  Other  clauses  of  the  treaty,  and  all  the 
attendant  circumstances,  combine  to  prove  that  the  chief  impelling  cause 
of  the  formation  of  the  league  was  the  property  question.  The  princes 
now  fairly  threw  off  the  mask  and  plainly  avowed  that  the  "Gospel" 
meant  the  right  to  confiscate  Catholic  property,  that  self-aggrandizement 


THE  AUGSBURG  DIET  AND  THE  CONFESSION        339 

was  what  they  meant  by  " religion,"  and  that  they  would  proceed  to 
any  extremity  rather  than  surrender  what  they  had  appropriated  from 
the  wealth  of  the  Catholic  Church.  They  distinctly  pledged  themselves 
to  protect  one  another  not  merely  against  war  and  invasion,  but  against 
continual  harassment  by  means  of  lawsuits  in  the  imperial  court.1 
Two  other  ineffectual  meetings  were  held  before  a  final  and  effective 
treaty  was  concluded  and  signed,  March  28th.  Ostensibly  formed  to 
defend  the  Protestants  from  attack  on  account  of  their  religion,  the 
league  was  in  reality  an  attempt  of  the  princes  and  free  cities  to  resist 
imperial  authority  and  maintain  the  system  of  princely  oligarchy  and 
municipal  independence  that  now  constituted  the  "Empire."  They  had 
the  powerful,  though  secret,  encouragement  of  Catholic  France,  and 
possibly  of  the  Sultan,  both  of  whom  were  delighted  to  see  Germany 
remain  rent  by  dissension.  A  united  Germany  would  have  meant  a 
death  blow  to  the  ambitions  of  Francis. 

During  the  summer  the  organization  was  completed;  the  princes  of 
Saxony  and  Hesse  were  appointed  chiefs  of  the  league.  All  of  the 
princes,  and  most  of  the  cities,  that  had  received  the  Reformation  soon 
gave  their  adhesion.  North  Germany  was  practically  a  unit  in  its  sup- 
port, and  the  more  important  towns  of  South  Germany  became  members. 
The  strength  of  this  confederacy  placed  it  on  an  equality  with  the  Powers 
of  Europe,  and  several  nations  contemplated  or  offered  alliances.  Had 
the  Zwinglians  been  admitted  it  would  have  been  invincible,  and  no 
European  ruler  would  have  dreamed  of  attacking  it,  least  of  all  one  so 
astute  as  Charles  V.  And  any  temptation  that  the  Emperor  might  other- 
wise have  felt  to  measure  strength  with  it  was  soon  removed  by  events. 
Before  the  date  set  for  the  enforcement  of  the  Augsburg  recess  had 
arrived,  the  Turks  were  again  menacing  the  Empire,  and  its  whole 
military  power  was  required  to  repel  the  invasion.  To  the  surprise  and 
gratification  of  the  Emperor,  the  Protestant  princes  were  in  this  crisis 
actuated  by  patriotism  rather  than  by  religious  rancor;  and  they  re- 
sponded to  the  call  for  help  by  putting  a  large  and  well  equipped  body  of 
troops  in  the  field.  The  Elector  of  Saxony  and  the  Landgrave  of  Hesse 
were  especially  active,  and  the  services  of  the  latter  in  the  field  were  so 
eminent  as  to  win  the  lively  gratitude  of  the  Emperor  and  the  assurance 
from  him  that  he  would  not  proceed  to  extremities  against  the 
Protestants. 

Charles  had  other  motives  than  gratitude  for  this  action.  Francis  I 
was  biding  his  time  to  seek  revenge  for  the  humiliation  of  Pavia,  and  had 

1Walch,  16:  1766  seq.  On  the  Protestant  intrigues  preceding  the  formation 
of  the  League,  consult  Armstrong's  "Charles  V,"  2:  125-130.  The  documents 
show  plainly  that  resistance  to  the  imperial  policy  of  prosecution  in  the  Fisca* 
Court  was  the  impelling  motive  to  the  formation  of  this  league. 


340  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

shown  himself  far  from  averse  to  aiding  the  Protestants,  should  they  come 
to  blows  with  the  Emperor.  Henry  VIII,  of  England,  was  also  hostile 
to  Charles,  because  the  latter  had  defeated  his  divorce  project,  and  would 
probably  have  made  an  alliance  with  the  Schmalkald  League  if  its  leaders 
had  then  favored  a  foreign  alliance.  As  yet  they  were  not  ready  for  so 
revolutionary  a  measure;  they  would  defend  themselves,  but  they  would 
not  unnecessarily  violate  the  imperial  constitution.  The  hope  of  Charles 
to  strengthen  his  position  in  Germany  by  the  election  of  his  brother 
Ferdinand  had  been  disappointed.  Aleander,  then  again  papal  legate, 
wrote  bitterly  to  Rome  in  March,  1532,  that  the  devil  had  "filled  the 
hearts  of  the  ducal  brothers,  William  and  Louis  of  Bavaria,  with  envy 
and  dislike  of  Ferdinand,  although  both  of  them  have  been  good  Catholics 
up  till  now."  Though  they  themselves  might  not  become  Protestants, 
he  thought  they  might  not  oppose  their  subjects  if  the  latter  should  wish 
to  change  their  religion. 

At  the  Diet  of  Regensburg,  in  1532,  the  Emperor  was  not  less  anxious 
for  peace  and  unity  than  he  had  been  two  years  before  at  Augsburg,  and 
was  much  more  ready  to  make  concessions.  Negotiations  had  been 
begun  with  the  Elector  of  Saxony  and  conducted  in  his  behalf  at  Niirnberg 
by  the  Archbishop  of  Mainz,  which  were  at  length  brought  to  a  success- 
ful conclusion.  The  intervention  of  Luther,  who  was  also  anxious  to  see 
peace  established,  led  the  Elector  to  moderate  his  first  demands,  and  in 
particular  to  assent  to  a  limitation  of  the  treaty  to  "the  present  adherents 
of  the  Confession  of  Augsburg."  It  was  agreed  that,  until  the  meeting 
of  the  general  council,  the  Landfriede  should  be  observed  by  all  the 
Estates,  so  that  none  should  molest  or  do  violence  to  another,  on  account 
of  the  faith  or  any  other  reason.  The  Emperor  should  use  all  diligence 
to  have  the  call  for  the  council  issued  within  six  months,  the  body  to 
meet  within  a  year  thereafter;  and  failing  that,  he  should  summon  the 
Estates  to  consult  with  him  what  further  should  be  done.  All  suits 
begun  or  likely  to  be  begun  by  the  imperial  Fisc  against  the  Elector  of 
Saxony  or  other  princes  to  be  in  the  meantime  suspended — thus  securing 
them  for  the  present  in  the  possession  of  all  confiscated  property.  These 
terms  were  acceptable  to  the  princes,  and  pleased  the  towns  also,  but  the 
Catholic  members  of  the  Diet  refused  to  accept  the  recess  in  which  the 
terms  of  the  treaty  were  embodied.  The  Protestants  thereupon  declared 
that  they  were  quite  willing  to  accept  the  Emperor's  personal  pledge, 
and  the  so-called  Peace  of  Niirnberg,1  concluded  by  Charles,  August  2, 
became  practically  operative  not  as  an  imperial  statute  but  on  the  basis 
of  a  private  understanding.  As  such  it  assured  the  peace  of  Germany 
for  a  period  of  over  ten  years,  another  opportunity  of  untroubled  develop- 

1  The  document  is  in  Walch,  16:  1835  seq. 


THE  AUGSBURG  DIET  AND  THE  CONFESSION        341 

ment  for  the  Reformation,  like  that  which  followed  the  Speyer  decree  of 
1526. 

The  policy  of  Charles  had  failed,  for  the  time  at  least,  but  he  did  not 
correctly  estimate  the  seriousness  of  the  check  he  had  received.  One  of 
his  favorite  sayings  was,  "I  and  time  against  any  two  in  Europe, "  but  in 
this  case  time  was  against,  not  with  him.  Not  for  centuries  had  Ger- 
many witnessed  so  brilliant  a  gathering  as  assembled  at  Augsburg,  and  not 
since  the  Reformation  began  had  the  opportunity  to  suppress  it  been  so 
favorable.  When  Charles  came  to  Worms  for  his  first  Diet  he  was  an 
untried  boy;  he  had  since  then  measured  himself  against  the  greatest  in 
Europe  and  had  proved  himself  their  superior.  The  most  powerful 
king  and  the  strongest  combination  of  Italian  powers  under  the  Pope 
had  in  turn  yielded  to  his  victorious  arms.  Flushed  with  victory,  he 
came  to  Germany  fully  determined  to  be  conciliatory  and  politic  indeed, 
but  to  make  the  imperial  dignity  something  more  than  a  mere  name  and 
to  restore  unity  to  the  Church.  He  saw  in  Protestantism,  what  it 
really  was,  a  political  opposition  to  imperialism,  as  well  as  a  religious 
opposition  to  the  Church,  and  therefore  the  chief  obstacle  to  his  imperial 
aims  and  hopes.  He  could  become  a  real  Emperor  only  by  eliminating 
this  party  from  Germany. 

But  though  Charles  thus  saw  clearly,  he  did  not  see  far  enough,  and 
the  greatest  obstacle  to  his  policy  and  the  secret  of  his  failure,  was  his 
own  ignorance  of  the  situation  and  his  consequent  miscalculation  of 
forces.  Politics  and  war  he  understood,  but  of  religion  he  knew  little 
and  of  theology  still  less.  Complete  as  was  his  grasp  of  the  externals,  his 
understanding  of  the  real  issues  was  almost  laughably  slight.  He  could 
appreciate  neither  the  importance  of  the  questions  in  debate,  nor  weigh 
the  reasons  advanced  on  either  side — the  whole  thing  was  Hebrew  to 
him.  Consequently,  though  he  was  less  violent  in  his  opinions  than  his 
religious  advisers,  he  steadfastly  maintained  his  Catholicism,  remained 
incapable  of  comprehending  the  objections  made  to  Catholic  doctrine 
and  practice  by  the  Lutherans,  and  never  had  a  glimmer  of  the  true 
grounds  of  revolt  from  the  Church.  As  Emperor  he  demanded  and 
expected  obedience  to  his  mandates,  which  appeared  to  him  wholly 
reasonable;  and  he  could  attribute  to  nothing  else  than  obstinacy  and 
disloyalty  the  refusal  of  the  princes  to  submit  to  the  authority  of  the  Pope 
until  a  general  council  should  finally  determine  the  matters  at  issue. 

It  added  to  the  complications  at  Augsburg  that  Clement  and  Charles 
were  at  cross  purposes.  Both  desired  unity  and  peace,  but  the  only 
unity  that  the  Pope  valued  was  the  restoration  of  his  authority  over  the 
revolted  portion  of  the  Church.  Persuasion  or  violence  were  all  one  to 
him,  so  Protestantism  was  suppressed.  The  Emperor  also  desired  the 


342  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

suppression  of  Protestantism,  but  he  recognized  that  certain  real  griev- 
ances underlay  the  revolt,  and  that  the  only  guarantee  of  continued  unity 
was  the  concession  of  reasonable  reforms  by  a  general  council.  He  would 
be  a  second  Sigismund  and  convoke  a  second  Council  of  Constance,  that 
should  really  accomplish  what  had  not  been  done  at  Constance.  No 
wonder  the  Pope  shivered  with  apprehension  at  the  very  word  "council," 
and  that  he  temporized,  promised  reluctantly  and  with  little  intention  of 
performing  what  he  promised. 

But  though  Charles  had  been  forced  to  yield  much  at  Regensburg,  it 
must  not  be  supposed  that  he  had  really  changed  his  plans  for  the  sup- 
pression of  the  Protestant  faith  or  the  increase  of  the  imperial  authority. 
He  had  only  bowed  to  the  inevitable  and  postponed  the  execution  of 
what  he  purposed;  the  time  would  yet  come  when  the  sword  must  decide 
whether  Protestantism  was  to  win  for  itself  toleration  in  Germany.  A 
careful  study  of  the  situation  in  Germany  at  the  conclusion  of  these  two 
Diets,  and  an  equally  careful  estimate  of  the  resources  available  to  the 
Emperor,  leads  to  the  conclusion  that  three  courses  were  open  to  him, 
and  that  choice  of  a  single  policy  and  firm  prosecution  of  it  had  a  reason- 
able prospect  of  success.  He  might  continue  the  compromise  of  the 
Peace  of  Niirnberg  and  grant  Protestantism  a  limited  toleration  by 
personal  favor,  not  as  a  legal  status;  he  might  press  his  idea  of  a  general 
council,  and,  staking  everything  on  what  that  might  accomplish,  use  all 
his  power  so  to  guide  that  body  as  to  bring  about  peaceful  comprehension 
of  the  Lutherans  in  the  Church;  or  he  might  assemble  his  forces,  bide 
his  time,  and  at  the  proper  moment  invade  Germany  and  establish  a 
strong  imperial  government  and  a  united  Church  on  the  ruins  of  the 
princely  oligarchy.  Unfortunately  for  Charles,  he  was  an  opportunist 
by  nature,  accustomed  to  postpone  decisions  and  let  events  decide  for 
him.  Instead  of  adopting  one  consistent  policy,  he  tried  all  three  in 
turn  during  the  next  fifteen  years,  and  sometimes  simultaneously — and 
failed. 


CHAPTER  III 

THE   SCHMALKALD  WAR 

JOHN  THE  STEADFAST  did  not  live  long  to  enjoy  the  brightening  prospects 
of  the  Lutherans,  consequent  upon  the  conclusion  of  the  Peace  of  Niirn- 
berg.  He  died  August  16,  1531,  and  was  succeeded  by  his  son,  John 
Frederick,  a  choleric  and  impatient  man,  mighty  at  meats  and  drinks 
and  at  little  else,  who  had  by  no  means  the  high  opinion  of  Luther  that 
his  father  had  cherished.  As  heir  apparent  he  had  more  than  once 
openly  expressed  his  disfavor,  and  while  as  prince  he  treated  the  reformer 
with  the  respect  due  to  one  who  was  in  some  sense  the  leader  of  the  move- 
ment, he  was  quite  sensible  of  his  own  power  and  dignity,  and  that  his 
was  the  final  responsibility  of  decision,  and  he  was  more  disposed  than 
his  predecessors  to  independence  of  thought  and  action. 

John  Frederick  was,  however,  little  fitted  by  character  or  training  for 
the  part  of  leader,  and  too  indolent  to  charge  himself  with  the  necessary 
labor  of  such  a  part.  As  before,  Landgrave  Philip,  of  Hesse,  was  quite 
willing  to  enact  this  role,  for  which  he  had  some  qualifications  and  more 
ambition.  He  played  his  part  in  a  way  that  well  illustrates  the  hollow- 
ness  of  the  Protestant  pretenses  of  the  time  and  the  partiality  of  Protestant 
historians  of  all  times.  To  believe  what  was  then  asserted  and  has  been 
commonly  written  since  of  this  period,  is  to  get  the  impression  that  the 
meek  and  harmless  Protestant  lamb  was  ever  at  the  point  of  being  de- 
voured by  the  fierce  Catholic  wolf.  But  when  one  gets  at  the  facts,  he 
finds  the  truth  to  be  that  both  parties  played  both  rdles  with  equal 
facility  and  skill,  and  each  was  alternately  lamb  or  wolf  as  circumstances 
compelled  or  policy  impelled.  It  was  now  the  Protestant  turn  to  play 
wolf. 

Duke  Ulrich,  of  Wurtemberg,  was  one  of  the  worst  German  princes  of 
the  age,  and  that  is  saying  much.  He  had  all  the  faults,  public  and  pri- 
vate, that  a  ruler  could  well  have,  and  if  he  had  any  virtues  he  contrived 
to  conceal  them  so  thoroughly  that  no  contemporary  mentions  them. 
After  a  long  misrule,  in  which  he  made  the  very  earth  groan  with  his 
crimes,  and  contrived  to  alienate  all  classes  of  his  subjects,  nobles,  burghers 
and  peasants  alike,  he  made  private  war  against  the  city  of  Reutlingen 
and  took  it  by  a  treacherous  surprise.  This  was  in  1519.  The  Swabian 
League  rose  against  him  and  drove  him  from  his  dominion.  All  Southern 
Germany  rejoiced,  while  all  good  men  breathed  more  freely  that  this 

343 


344  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

drunkard,  libertine  and  tyrant  no  longer  remained  in  the  fatherland  to 
vex  them.  After  various  mutations,  the  duchy  had  fallen  to  the  Emperor, 
and  had  by  him  in  1531  been  bestowed  on  his  brother  Ferdinand.  Duke 
Ulrich  had  ever  since  his  deposition  been  a  wanderer,  vainly  attempting 
to  interest  other  princes  in  helping  him  to  regain  throne  and  estates. 

This  old  reprobate  had  now  experienced  a  timely  "conversion"  to 
Protestantism,  in  virtue  of  which  he  began  with  fresh  hope  to  seek  the 
aid  of  Protestant  princes  toward  his  restoration.  Philip  of  Hesse,  prob- 
ably having  a  fellow-feeling  for  such  a  scamp  (arcades  anibo},  and  unable 
to  resist  the  prospect  of  so  important  a  gain  for  his  party,  was  led  to  give 
his  active  support.  Francis  I,  delighted  at  any  time  to  make  mischief  in 
Germany,  furnished  financial  aid;  Philip  raised  a  strong  force  and  easily 
defeated  the  feeble  opposition  of  Ferdinand;  so  that,  in  May,  1534,  Duke 
Ulrich  was  returned  in  triumph  to  the  home  of  his  ancestors.  Strange  to 
say,  his  people  received  him  willingly,  for  while  he  had  formerly  chastised 
them  with  whips  the  Habsburgs  had  chastised  them  with  scorpions. 
Besides,  they  no  doubt  hoped  his  reign  would  be  short,  as  he  was  now  an 
old  man,  and  they  expected  much  from  his  son,  Christopher,  who  was 
as  worthy  of  their  regard  as  the  father  was  unworthy.  The  fact,  however, 
that  a  single  prince  could  thus  set  at  defiance  the  Emperor's  disposition 
of  Wurtemberg  and  wrest  from  the  house  of  Habsburg  this  coveted  pos- 
session, at  the  same  time  transforming  it  into  a  Protestant  principality 
and  adding  its  military  and  financial  strength  to  the  Schmalkald  League, 
measures  the  weakness  of  the  imperial  authority  better  than  pages  of 
disquisition  on  the  constitution  of  the  Empire. 

The  Duke  now  showed  the  new  convert's  zeal  in  promoting  the  faith 
he  had  adopted,  tempered  by  a  discretion  unusual  in  him.  Ferdinand 
was  compelled  to  recognize  the  situation  and  renounce  his  claim  to 
Wurtemberg,  and  to  ratify  the  Emperor's  promise  that  none  should  be 
brought  before  the  Imperial  Courts  on  account  of  religion;  while  on  his 
part  Duke  Ulrich  was  forbidden  to  compel  his  subjects  to  accept  the 
Reformation.  Perhaps  he  used  no  compulsion,  but  he  left  unexerted  no 
expedient  short  of  that  to  extend  the  new  faith.  The  theologian  Brenz 
was  called  to  Stuttgart  to  direct  the  work,  which  on  the  whole  took 
on  a  Lutheran  cast,  though  many  of  the  preachers  were  Zwinglians,  and 
the  Duke  was  himself  well  disposed  toward  that  party.  He  was,  how- 
ever, more  anxious  for  unity  than  for  any  one  form  of  Protestant  worship 
or  theology,  and  he  succeeded  in  a  few  years  in  making  his  domains 
moderately  Lutheran.  He  quite  surpassed  the  other  princes  in  his  un- 
scrupulous rapacity,  though  the  feat  was  difficult.  The  churches  and 
convents  were  plundered  of  all  their  valuables,  and  their  lands  were 
confiscated.  The  proceeds  were  spent  in  eating,  drinking  and  luxury,  and 


THE  SCHMALKALD  WAR  345 

as  the  debts  of  the  prince  continually  increased,  so  did  the  taxes  of  his 
subjects.  It  was  a  Reformation  that  did  not  reform:  the  country  ceased 
to  be  Catholic  without  really  becoming  Protestant.  Thirty  years  later, 
Jacob  Andrea,  a  Tubingen  theologian,  could  find  "only  dissolute,  epicur- 
ean, bestial  living;  nothing  but  gluttony,  drunkenness,  covetousness, 
pride  and  blasphemy."1  This  testimony,  from  a  favorably  disposed 
witness,  indicates  that  the  Protestantizing  of  Wurtemberg  cannot  be 
described  as  an  unmixed  blessing. 

Many  things  have  been  passed  over  in  our  survey  of  the  progress  of 
the  Reformation,  not  because  they  were  unworthy  of  notice,  but  for  lack 
of  space.  The  historian  must  practice  the  art  of  selection;  to  tell  every- 
thing is  to  tell  nothing.  Little  attention,  therefore,  has  been  paid  to 
the  Anabaptists,  for  the  reason  chiefly  that  they  had  no  part  in  the  affairs 
that  we  have  been  considering.  But  they  had  come  to  be  a  numerous 
people.  Nearly  every  city  in  Germany  contained  its  group  of  Anabap- 
tists, until  such  time  as  the  authorities  decided  to  tolerate  their  presence 
no  longer.  They  were  the  only  party  among  those  protesting  against  the 
errors  of  Rome  who  were  logical  and  thoroughgoing.  They  alone  accept- 
ed in  absolute  good  faith  and  followed  to  its  necessary  consequences  the 
principle  avowed  by  the  leading  reformers,  that  the  Scriptures  were  the 
sole  source  of  religious  authority.  With  Luther  and  Zwingli  this  was 
merely  a  convenient  controversial  weapon  to  be  employed  against  the 
Romanists  when  the  latter  appealed  to  the  authority  of  Pope  and  Councils 
and  the  Fathers;  it  was  never  a  principle  heartily  accepted  and  candidly 
applied.  The  Anabaptists  alone  had  penetrated  beneath  the  surface 
of  traditional  Christianity  and  comprehended  the  real  Gospel  of  Jesus. 
They  were  centuries  in  advance  of  their  time  in  perceiving  that  the  Good 
News  of  salvation,  as  taught  by  Jesus,  was  a  social  gospel,  and  that  the 
acceptance  of  it  implied  and  necessitated  a  reconstruction  of  society 
until  all  institutions  could  endure  the  measurement  of  the  Golden  Rule. 
In  a  word,  the  Anabaptists  were  the  real  reformers,  and  the  only  real 
reformers,  of  the  sixteenth  century.2  They  were  also  more  sensitive  to 
the  social  renovation  then  hi  progress  than  others,  and  wished  to  make 
that  renovation  more  complete  than  there  was  any  reasonable  prospect  of 
its  becoming.  They  were  more  far-sighted  and  consistent  than  practical. 

It  was  the  misfortune  of  the  German  groups  of  Anabaptists  to  fall  into 
the  hands  of  incompetent  and  untrained  leaders.  In  Switzerland,  and 
for  a  time  in  Southern  Germany,  they  were  led  by  men  who  were  the 

1  Quoted  by  Janssen,  5:  426. 

*  The  fact  must  not  be  overlooked  that  the  name  Anabaptist  was  used  in  the 
Reformation  to  describe  different  groups,  some  of  whom  had  no  real  title  to  the 
appellation.  Some  called  Anabaptists  would  be  described  to-day  as  Baptists, 
but  other  groups  would  now  be  called  Quakers,  and  others  still  anarchists  and 
communists. 


346  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

peers  in  learning,  eloquence  and  character  of  the  greatest  among  the 
reformers,  but  the  case  was  otherwise  in  Central  and  Northern  Germany. 
There  men  of  little  knowledge  though  of  great  zeal  took  the  lead.  Chief 
among  these  was  Melchior  Hofmann.  He  had  been  a  furrier,  became 
one  of  Luther's  early  disciples,  and  was  regarded  with  considerable 
favor  by  the  Wittenberg  leader,  who  gave  him  a  testimonial  and  used 
influence  to  procure  him  a  place  of  labor.  Hofmann  was  profoundly 
affected  by  Luther's  teachings  regarding  the  speedy  coming  of  the  Last 
Day,1  which  are  so  frequent  and  emphatic  in  the  reformer's  writings 
almost  to  the  end  of  his  life.  In  1526  Hofmann  published  at  Stockholm 
a  little  book,  containing  an  interpretation  of  Daniel,  on  the  lines  of  Luther's 
teaching,  but  going  a  step  further  than  Luther  had  ever  gone  in  attempting 
to  fix  the  exact  year  for  the  ending  of  the  age  and  the  coming  of  Christ, 
namely,  1633.  Even  after  this,  he  was  still  in  favor  with  the  Lutherans, 
and  does  not  seem  to  have  been  finally  repudiated  by  them  until  his 
adoption  of  Zwinglian  views  a  year  or  two  later.  Chiliasm  might  be 
tolerable  in  Lutheran  circles,  but  the  very  name  of  Zwingli  was  anathema. 

Hofmann  went  further  than  Zwinglianism  and  became  an  Anabaptist, 
and  at  the  same  time  took  up  his  abode  in  Strassburg,  where  there  was  a 
strong  group  of  this  sect.  He  now  announced  that  Strassburg  was  to  be 
the  New  Jerusalem  of  the  coming  age,  and  the  year  1635  was  to  be  the 
time  of  its  consummation.  From  this  center  the  prophet  (as  he  was  now 
called)  made  evangelistic  tours  in  Germany  and  Holland,  gaining  many 
disciples.  As  the  excitement  increased  in  Strassburg  the  magistrates  took 
the  matter  in  hand,  and  when  the  date  arrived  for  the  establishment  of 
the  New  Jerusalem  Hofmann  was  languishing  hi  prison,  where  he  was 
detained  until  his  death.  Ordinary  folk  would  have  found  this  discon- 
certing, but  the  enthusiasm  of  most  Anabaptists  was  proof  against  dis- 
couragement, and  a  new  prophet  speedily  came  to  revive  the  drooping 
spirits  of  the  weaker  sort.  This  was  Jan  Matthys,  a  baker  of  Haarlem, 
who  had  become  a  convert  to  Hofmann's  views  during  one  of  the  latter's 
evangelistic  tours.  Strassburg  being  now  unavailable,  Matthys  and  his 
followers  looked  about  for  another  and  more  promising  site  for  the  New 
Jerusalem.  This  they  found  with  no  great  difficulty  hi  the  city  of  Miins- 
ter,  Westphalia. 

Miinster  was  just  then  in  the  throes  of  a  political  and  religious  revolu- 

1  His  writings  are  full  of  passages  like  the  following:  "The  world  is  running 
BO  hastily  towards  its  encl  that  serious  thoughts  often  occur  as  to  whether  the 
Last  Day  may  not  break  before  the  translation  of  the  Scriptures  into  German 
can  be  completed.  For  it  is  certain  that  no  more  temporal  things  prophesied 
in  the  Scriptures  are  to  be  fulfilled.  The  Roman  Empire  has  fallen;  the  Turk  has 
reached  his  height;  the  glory  of  the  Papacy  is  declining,  and  the  world  is  cracking 
at  all  ends,  as  though  about  to  break  and  fall."  Introduction  to  Daniel,  1530. 
LDS,  41:  233. 


THE  SCHMALKALD  WAR  347 

tion.  It  was  one  of  the  numerous  German  Sees  in  which  the  bishop- 
exercised  a  secular  jurisdiction,  as  well  as  a  religious;  but  it  had  also  been 
a  partially  free  city,  having  a  council  elected  by  its  citizens.  Bernard 
Rothmann  had  come  to  Miinster  in  1529  and  preached  the  Lutheran 
doctrine,  with  such  success  as  to  win  to  his  support  the  majority  of  both 
clergy  and  citizens.  A  revolution,  half  political,  half  religious,  had 
followed;  the  burghers  rose  against  the  bishop  and  insisted  on  complete 
independence.  By  the  intervention  of  Philip  of  Hesse  the  bishop  was 
induced  to  resign  his  civil  authority,  and  the  town  was  recognized  as 
Lutheran  (February  14,  1533).  It  was  at  this  juncture  that  Matthys 
turned  his  eyes  in  that  direction  and  chose  Munster  as  the  scene  of  his 
future  labors.  The  way  was  further  prepared  for  him  by  Rothmann's 
rapid  advance  toward  Anabaptism,  which  was  made  plain  by  his  publica- 
tion of  a  "Confession  of  Two  Sacraments,"  not  only  advocating  the  bap- 
tism of  believers  and  rejecting  that  of  infants,  but  even  denning  baptism 
as  " dipping  or  completely  plunging  into  water."  It  does  not  appear 
that  this  method  of  baptizing  was  ever  practiced  in  Miinster,  for  when, 
some  time  later,  a  large  number  of  the  people  were  baptized  by  certain 
"apostles"  of  Matthys,  an  eye-witness  says  that  they  were  baptized 
from  pails  of  water.  In  a  few  weeks  after  these  envoys  of  Matthys 
arrived  at  Miinster,  and  proclaimed  the  new  gospel,  they  had  made  so 
many  adherents  in  the  town  that  at  the  next  municipal  election  the  Ana- 
baptists were  able  to  choose  a  council  mainly  composed  of  their  own  num- 
ber. They  were  now  in  full  control  of  the  city.1 

Matthys  himself  now  came  on  and  took  the  leadership,  and  Anabaptists 
flocked  into  the  town  from  all  sides,  though  in  numbers  fewer  than  was 
expected.  They  were  largely  artisans  and  a  few  peasants  of  the  better 
class.  For  a  long  time  previous  to  the  Reformation,  Inquisitors  had  noted 
that  certain  crafts  were  honeycombed  with  heresy.  Specific  mention 
of  weavers  is  made  in  many  Catholic  documents  as  thus  under  general 
suspicion;  weavers,  hatters  and  furriers  seem  to  have  furnished  many 
recruits  to  the  Anabaptists;  and  it  was  their  membership  in  the  guilds 
that  gave  them  political  control  in  Miinster.  Their  power  was  speedily 
used  to  promote  the  religious  and  social  reforms  of  their  programme. 
Community  of  goods  was  established.  The  prophet  and  some  of  his 
followers  had  almost  daily  "revelations,"  and  under  such  guidance  no 
folly  was  too  great  to  be  committed.  There  is  no  doubt  that  Matthys 
became  insane  in  consequence  of  his  religious  enthusiasm,  and  others 

1  Kerssenbroick,  Geschichte  der  Wiedertauffer  zu  Munster,  1568,  published  in 
German  translation  from  the  Latin  MS.  in  1771,  and  reprinted  1881;  Newman, 
"History  of  Antipedobaptism,"  Philadelphia,  1897,  chs.  xxi,  xxii;  Janssen,  5:  449 
seq.;  Keller,  Geschichte  der  Wiedertaufer  und  ihres  Reichs  zu  Munster,  Munster,  1860; 
Kautsky,  "Communism  in  Central  Europe  in  the  Time  of  the  Reformation," 
London,  1897,  pp.  216-293 ;  Bax,  "  Rise  and  Fall  of  the  Anabaptists,"  London,  1906. 


348  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

came  little  short  of  that  result.  The  noise  of  these  things  went  abroad, 
and  the  bishop,  repenting  of  his  concessions,  gathered  a  considerable 
force  and  laid  siege  to  the  city.  Matthys  received  a  "vision"  command- 
ing him  to  make  a  sortie  against  the  besiegers,  and  despite  the  advice  of 
his  followers  insisted  on  being  obedient  to  the  heavenly  vision  and  was 
killed. 

One  of  his  disciples,  John  Bockhold,  of  Ley  den,  then  declared  himself 
appointed  by  God  to  succeed  to  the  leadership  and  seems  to  have  been 
accepted  without  question.  He  soon  proclaimed  that  the  kingdom  of 
David  was  to  be  reestablished  in  Munster,  the  new  Mount  Zion,  and  that 
he  was  King  David.  He  found  no  more  difficulty  in  persuading  his 
followers  to  receive  this  new  revelation  than  the  late  John  Alexander 
Dowie  had  in  persuading  his  disciples  to  accept  him  as  Elijah  the  Third. 
There  have  been  credulous  fools  in  all  ages,  and  there  are  plenty  of  such 
to-day,  ready  to  believe  without  question  and  without  evidence,  and  even 
against  evidence,  whatever  some  insane  enthusiast  or  cunning  impostor 
tells  them  in  the  name  of  God.  King  David  speedily  established  a 
harem,  and  encouraged  his  followers  to  imitate  his  example,  which  many 
of  them  did,  taking  to  themselves  wives  as  they  wished.  The  fact  that 
there  were  many  more  women  than  men  in  the  city  at  the  time  is  not 
without  significance  hi  this  connection.  This  practice  of  polygamy  at 
Munster  was  ever  afterwards  made  a  chief  ground  of  reproach  against 
the  Anabaptists,  especially  by  the  Lutherans,  and  this  in  spite  of  the  fact 
that  such  practice  was  never  even  proposed  by  members  of  the  party 
elsewhere.  We  shall  presently  see  how  well  qualified  the  Lutherans  were 
to  cast  the  first  stone. 

Though  the  bishop  could  not  muster  force  enough  to  take  the  city, 
he  was  able  to  make  the  investment  complete,  and  the  town  began  to 
suffer  from  famine.  Dissensions  broke  out  and  King  David  had  great 
difficulty  in  maintaining  his  authority.  In  spite  of  the  fervid  appeals 
that  were  sent  out  from  time  to  time  to  Anabaptists  elsewhere  to  come 
and  share  the  glories  and  privileges  of  the  New  Jerusalem,  no  attempt 
was  made  for  the  relief  of  the  town.  Perhaps  Anabaptists  were  overawed 
by  the  display  of  military  force;  perhaps  they  had  heard  of  the  doings 
in  the  town  and  disapproved;  what  is  certain  is  that  they  made  no  sign. 
At  length  a  party  opposed  to  King  David  opened  the  gates,  the  besieging 
forces  gained  entrance  and  all  was  over  but  the  slaughter  of  the  innocent 
and  the  punishment  of  the  guilty.  The  leaders,  after  inhuman  tortures, 
were  hung  up  in  iron  cages  to  the  tower  of  St.  Lambert's  church,  in  the 
chief  market-place,  to  die  of  exposure  and  starvation.  There  they  hung 
until  a  few  years  ago,  when  it  became  necessary  to  repair  the  tower.  A 
few  bones  only  remained  and  these  were  removed,  but  the  cages  were 


THE  SCHMALKALD  WAR  349 

hung  again  to  the  remodeled  tower.  In  the  town  hall,  the  curator  (by 
the  way,  a  woman)  shows  visitors  of  our  day  the  big  two-handed  sword 
of  the  prophet,  with  which  many  of  his  deluded  followers  were  beheaded; 
the  pincers  which  were  heated  red-hot  and  used  to  tear  the  flesh  from  the 
bones  of  these  great  criminals;  and  lastly  the  withered  hand  of  John  of 
Leyden,  a  ghastly  and  repulsive  relic.  And  these  are  all  the  memorials 
existing  to-day  of  that  Anabaptist  uprising,  which  might  be  called  the 
comedy  of  the  Reformation  if  the  ending  had  been  less  grimly  tragic. 

We  have  little  occasion  to  follow  out  the  results  of  this  unfortunate 
affair,  further  than  to  remark  that  it  was  made  the  pretext  for  relentless 
persecution  of  all  Anabaptists,  in  which  Protestants  were  even  more 
active  than  Catholics.  It  is  the  effect  of  the  Miinster  episode  on  the 
Lutherans  that  is  of  chief  interest  now.  The  Catholic  party  made  the 
most  of  the  incident  to  discredit  reform;  they  did  not  suffer  it  to  be  for- 
gotten that  Rothmann,  who  began  the  new  order  of  things  in  Miinster, 
and  continued  active  in  them  to  the  end,  was  a  disciple  of  Luther  and  went 
to  the  city  with  Luther's  approval.  The  Catholics  taunted  the  Lutherans 
with  this  defection  of  one  of  their  number,  and  affected  to  consider  it 
no  defection,  but  the  legitimate  development  of  principles  taught  by  the 
Lutherans  themselves.  And,  taken  in  connection  with  another  scandalous 
defection  among  the  Lutherans  that  occurred  shortly  after,  they  were 
able  to  make  out  a  plausible  case  against  the  reformers. 

We  can  better  comprehend  the  real  significance  of  the  so-called  Miinster 
"uproar"  than  could  its  contemporaries.  It  was  something  more  than 
a  sectarian  disorder;  it  was  the  attempt  of  a  free  city  to  defy  the  princely 
oligarchy  and  take  an  independent  course  of  reformation.  The  fanatical 
excesses  of  the  Anabaptists  afforded  an  excellent  pretext  to  proceed 
against  the  city  on  avowed  religious  grounds,  for  an  offense  that  was 
gravest  on  its  political  side.  There  was  a  prospect  that  Miinster  might 
enlist  other  towns  in  a  contest  with  the  princes,  and  that  was  really  the 
city's  unforgivable  offense,  not  its  Anabaptism,  nor  even  its  communism 
and  polygamy,  though  these  gave  Lutherans  a  chance  to  raise  a  great 
.  hue  and  cry.  The  revolt  of  Miinster  became  a  religious  movement  by 
accident — because  of  the  incongruous  element  introduced  into  its  popu- 
lation by  the  incoming  of  Matthys  and  his  throng  of  followers.  It  was 
essentially  a  political  and  social  movement,  an  attempt  to  realize  a 
democratic  life  and  municipal  independence. 

A  more  important  movement  of  the  same  nature  was  going  on  at  the 
same  time  in  Liibeck,  which,  had  it  proved  successful,  would  have  trans- 
formed the  old  aristocratic  Hansa  into  a  powerful  league  of  municipal 
democracies,  and  secured  the  union  of  the  maritime  towns  of  the  Baltic 
with  the  commercial  cities  of  Southern  Germany,  like  Niirnberg  and 


350  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

Augsburg.  This  would  have  been  a  more  powerful  combination  than 
the  Schmalkald  League.  There  were  two  reasons  for  the  failure  of  the 
ambitious  attempt.  The  first  was,  that  it  came  a  century  too  late. 
Conditions  had  changed;  the  commerce  of  Europe  was  taking  a  new 
course.  The  Mediterranean  was  no  longer  the  only  route  between  the 
East  and  Europe;  it  was  not  even  the  best  route;  the  Netherlands  and 
England  were  beginning  to  forge  to  the  front  as  commercial  nations, 
making  their  way  to  India  by  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope.  The  second  rea- 
son was,  that  the  plan  became  entangled  with  the  religious  struggle. 

Liibeck  openly  adopted  the  Lutheran  faith  in  1531,  and  at  the  same 
time  a  democratic  revolution  took  place  in  the  city.  The  leader  in  both 
movements  was  Jiirgen  Wullenweber,  a  man  of  remarkable  gifts,  ambi- 
tious, but  devoted  to  the  interests  of  Liibeck  as  he  saw  them.  Under  his 
leadership  the  town  undertook  to  recover  the  former  prestige  and  power 
of  the  great  Hansa,  now  somewhat  declined.  A  great  sum  of  money  was 
raised,  largely  by  confiscation  of  the  ornaments  of  the  churches,  and  the 
services  of  a  large  body  of  mercenary  troops  was  procured.  For  a  time 
all  went  well.  A  successful  war  was  waged  with  the  Netherlands,  Den- 
mark was  nearly  conquered,  and  the  triumph  of  the  Hansa  seemed  near 
at  hand.  Then  came  reverses,  defeats  by  sea  and  land,  religious  jealousies 
caused  increasing  disunion,  and  the  plan  of  forming  around  the  Baltic 
a  confederacy  of  strong,  democratic,  independent  towns,  with  affiliations 
elsewhere,  broke  down.  Wullenweber 's  enemies  prevailed  in  Liibeck 
itself,  and  after  imprisonment  and  torture  he  was  beheaded  as  a  traitor. 
With  his  downfall  and  the  failure  of  his  magnificent  but  impracticable 
project,  the  last  force  that  could  make  headway  against  the  oligarchic 
rulers  of  the  Empire  was  dissipated.  The  cities  of  Germany  were  still 
a  strong  force,  and  one  always  to  be  reckoned  with,  but  there  was  no 
longer  a  possibility  that  they  could  take  first  place.  It  was  irrevocably 
decided  that  the  Reformation  was  not  to  become  a  burgher  revolution. 
The  time  for  that  was  not  yet,  though  it  was  coming. 

Philip  of  Hesse,  the  Magnanimous,  who  had  once  before  endangered 
the  whole  Protestant  movement,  was  now  the  means  of  involving  it 
in  great  scandal  and  disgrace,  not  to  say  danger.  He  had  married,  from 
the  usual  political  motives,  Christina  of  Saxony,  daughter  of  Duke 
George,  Luther's  redoubtable  opponent.  Almost  immediately  after 
his  marriage  he  began  to  be  unfaithful  to  her,  and,  after  she  had  borne 
him  three  sons  and  as  many  daughters,  he  finally  declared  himself  unable 
longer  to  maintain  conjugal  relations  with  her.  In  defense  of  this  decision 
he  alleged  against  her  both  moral  and  physical  infirmities,  but  the  only 
reason  seems  to  have  been  his  own  incurably  lecherous  nature.  He  was, 
or  thought  himself,  unable  to  live  a  life  of  continence,  and  the  result  was 


THE  SCHMALKALD  WAR  351 

frequent  adultery,  about  which  his  conscience  troubled  him  enough  to 
make  him  abstain  from  the  eucharist,  but  not  enough  to  make  him 
abstain  from  his  mistresses.  At  the  court  of  his  sister  he  made  the 
acquaintance  of  Margarethe  von  der  Saal,  a  beautiful  young  woman, 
who  was  willing  to  be  his  only  under  seal  of  marriage.  Some  of  Philip's 
apologists  urge  in  his  behalf  that  he  was  too  honorable  to  repudiate  his 
wife,  but  we  may  conjecture  that  fear  of  Duke  George  was  the  chief 
source  of  his  honorable  scruple;  to  which  may  be  added  the  fact  that, 
while  his  wife  had  every  reason  to  divorce  him,  he  had  no  pretext  for 
seeking  a  divorce  from  her. 

In  this  dilemma,  Philip,  who  was  becoming  quite  learned  in  the  Scrip- 
tures and  in  theology,  happily  bethought  him  of  the  example  of  the  Patri- 
archs. He  could  see  no  reason  why,  if  Jacob  had  two  wives,  and  sisters 
at  that,  a  like  privilege  might  not  be  allowed  him.  His  injured  wife, 
with  a  complaisance  difficult  to  understand,1  signed  a  document  giving 
her  consent  to  his  taking  a  second  wife.  In  return  Philip  promised  that 
only  her  children  should  be  legal  heirs  of  his  titles  and  estates.2  He  now 
sought  learned  opinions  on  this  matter  from  the  theologians  of  his  own 
court,  then  from  Bucer,  and  finally  induced  the  Strassburg  theologian  to 
visit  his  Wittenberg  confreres  and  obtain  their  sanction.  Luther  had 
already  been  ambiguous  in  his  public  teaching  on  this  point;  as  the  Old 
Testament  plainly  contained  examples  of  polygamy,  and  as  he  found  no 
explicit  condemnation  of  polygamy  in  the  New  Testament,  his  conserva- 
tive principle  of  interpretation  led  logically  to  the  conclusion  that  polyg- 
amy cannot  be  reckoned  a  sin  under  the  Christian  dispensation.  Never- 
theless, he  did  not  feel  quite  easy  in  his  mind  about  that  conclusion; 
it  was  logical,  no  doubt,  and  yet  it  would  have  most  awkward  consequences 
if  it  were  publicly  proclaimed.  On  the  other  hand  the  Landgrave  was  a 
very  pillar  of  Protestantism,  and  if  he  were  rebuffed  he  might  be  lost  to 
the  cause.  Rome  might  well  hasten  to  receive  him  back  into  her  fold, 
at  a  greater  sacrifice  than  annulment  of  his  marriage  and  smoothing  the 
way  for  a  new  union;  and  the  Emperor  would  welcome  Philip  as  an  ally 
at  any  time  and  with  all  possible  warmth.3 

Luther  had  always  been  consistently  opposed  to  divorce,  and  Melanch- 
thon  had  advised  Henry  VIII  to  commit  bigamy  rather  than  divorce 
Catharine  of  Aragon,  but  they  hesitated  long  before  giving  like  advice 
to  a  German  prince.  At  length  Melanchthon  drew  up  a  paper,  dated 
December  30,  1539,  in  the  form  of  a  letter,  but  treated  by  Philip  and 

1  She  afterwards  declared  that  her  assent  had  been  obtained  while  she  was  un- 
conscious!    Janssen,  6:  82. 

2  The  marriage  contract  with  Fraulein  von  der  Saal,  in  which  this  promise  is 
legally  confirmed,   is  given  by  Rady,  Die  Reformatoren  in  ihrer  Beziehung  zur 
Doppelehe  des  Landgrafen  Philipp,  Frankfurt,  1890,  pp.  43,  44. 

3CR,  3:  851-856. 


352  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

often  called  by  writers  who  refer  to  it  as  a  "dispensation."  This  long, 
rambling  and  ambiguous  document  does  great  credit  to  Melanchthon's 
gifts  for  compromise,  and  crowns  all  his  efforts  in  that  line  by  showing 
how  God  and  the  devil,  lechery  and  virtue,  can  be  "harmonized"  after 
the  fashion  in  which  he  delighted.  He  beats  about  the  bush  through 
interminable  sentences,  with  distinctions  between  a  law  and  a  dispensa- 
tion, the  original  divine  law  of  marriage  and  the  license  permitted  by 
God  to  the  patriarchs,  the  obligations  of  chastity  even  on  a  man  who 
should  have  a  second  wife,  and  the  like  ambiguities  and  edifying  generali- 
ties, but  at  last  comes  to  the  point,  albeit  in  a  lame  and  hesitating  way, 
in  the  following  opinion : 

If,  however,  your  Grace  should  at  length  resolve  to  take  another 
wife,  we  think  this  should  be  kept  secret,  as  was  said  above  of  the 
dispensation;  namely,  that  your  Grace,  and  the  Lady,  with  some 
confidential  persons,  should  know  your  Grace's  mind  and  conscience 
through  confession.  From  this  no  particular  rumor  or  scandal  would 
arise;  for  it  is  not  unusual  for  princes  to  have  concubines;  and  al- 
though all  the  people  would  not  know  what  the  circumstances  were, 
the  intelligent  would  be  able  to  guess  them,  and  would  be  better 
pleased  with  such  a  quiet  way  of  life,  than  with  adultery  and  other 
wild  and  licentious  courses.  Nor  are  we  to  heed  everything  that 
people  say,  provided  our  consciences  stand  right.  Thus  far,  and  we 
deem  this  right.  For  that  which  is  permitted  in  the  law  of  Moses 
concerning  marriage  is  not  forbidden  in  the  gospel,  which  does  not 
change  the  rule  of  outward  life,  but  brings  in  eternal  righteousness 
and  eternal  life,  and  kindles  a  true  obedience  to  God,  and  would  set 
our  corrupt  natures  straight  again.1 

The  letter  as  a  whole  comes  to  this:  "We  really  wish  you  wouldn't, 
but  it  is  not  explicitly  forbidden  in  Scripture,  though  it  is  illegal  and  would 
be  a  bad  general  rule,  but  whatever  you  do  by  all  means  keep  it  secret. " 
And  this  is  so  much  insisted  on,  the  writer  returning  to  it  again  and  yet 
again,  as  to  make  it  evident  this  was  the  one  thing  uppermost  in  his  mind. 

Encouraged  by  this  letter  to  defy  the  law  of  the  Empire 2  and  the 
Christian  sentiment  of  his  age,  Philip  was  duly  "married"  to  Fraulein 
von  der  Saal  by  Melander,  his  court  preacher,  on  March  4,  1540,  in 
the  presence  of  Bucer,  Melanchthon  and  other  "honorable  men."  The 
Landgrave  wrote  a  letter  of  thanks  to  Luther  for  his  advice,  and  the 
reformer's  reply  shows  an  uneasy  conscience:  "We  want  to  keep  the 

1  The  document,  which  is  described  as  an  "Answer"  to  Philip,  was  drawn  up 
by  Melanchthon,  and  was  published  at  Wittenberg  1539.    Original  in  CR,  3:  856; 
signed  first  by  Luther  and  Melanchthon  as  authors,  then,  as  agreeing  with  them, 
by  Bucer,  Antonius  Corvinus,  Adam  Fulda,  Joannes  Lemingus,  Justus  Winther, 
Dionisius  Melander,  Balthaser  Raid.     English  version  in  Hare,  "Vindication  of 
Luther,"  Cambridge,  1885,  pp.  237-240;  reprinted  in  Richard's  "Melanchthon," 
pp.  274-279. 

2  Charles  had  proclaimed  a  new  criminal  code  for  the  Empire,  in  which  the 
penalty  for  bigamy  was  death.    This  only  reenacted  an  ancient  German  law. 


THE  SCHMALKALD  WAR  353 

affair  a  secret  for  the  sake  of  the  example,  which  every  one  would  follow, 
even  at  last  the  coarse  peasants.1  There  are  also  other  reasons  as  great 
or  even  greater  why  you  should  keep  it  to  yourself  and  not  avow  it, 
which  would  make  a  lot  of  trouble.  Wherefore  your  Grace  will  please 
be  secret  and  improve  your  life  as  you  promised. "  2 

But  the  affair  was  far  from  secret;  it  soon  became  notorious  as  the 
greatest  scandal  of  a  scandalous  time.  The  Landgrave  himself,  doubtless 
at  the  instigation  of  his  new  "wife"  and  her  ambitious  mother,  had  a 
public  repetition  of  the  marriage  ceremony,  to  which  several  people  of 
rank  were  invited.  3  A  few  weeks  later  Duke  George  was  able  to  arrest 
the  mother  of  the  bride  in  his  domains  and  obtain  from  her  baggage 
some  incriminating  documents,  so  that  the  scandal  became  worse. 
Melanchthon,  as  usual,  proved  himself  to  have  all  the  constancy  and 
firmness  of  a  weather-vane.  He  had  been  perfectly  obsequious  to  the 
prince,  and  now  he  was  horribly  frightened  by  the  gathering  storm. 
What  he  flattered  himself  by  calling  his  "conscience" — nothing  more 
ethical  than  a  lively  fear  of  consequences — began  to  trouble  him  so 
seriously  that  the  worry,  joined  to  an  attack  of  malarial  fever,  threatened 
his  life.  Luther,  in  no  way  dismayed,  went  to  Melanchthon's  sick  bed  at 
Weimar  and  always  afterwards  maintained  that  he  received  his  friend 
back  from  the  grave  in  answer  to  prayer.  What  really  happened  was 
that  his  ruder  nature  infused  enough  strength  into  the  shrinking  cowardice 
of  Melanchthon's  soul  to  hearten  the  latter  up  a  little  and  make  his 
recovery  possible.4  One  would  not  dishonor  God  by  attributing  to  him 
any  part  in  the  transaction. 

1  It  is  remarks  like  this,  plentifully  besprinkling  Luther's  writings,  that  caused 
and  justify  the  saying  of  Professor  Pollard  in  the  Cambridge  Modern  History,  that 
Luther  "had  the  upstart's  contempt  for  the  claos  from  which  he  sprang."     In 
his  later  years  Luther  too  often  forgot  that  he  \*a,s  the  son  of  a  peasant  and  re- 
membered only  that  he  was  the  friend  of  princes. 

2  This  letter  (for  obvious  reasons?)  is  not  contained  in  any  of  the  collections  of 
Luther's  correspondence  published  by  various  editors  of  his  works,  but  may  be 
found  in  Lenz,  Briefwechsel  des  Landgraf  Philipps  mit  Bucer,  Berlin,  1880,  I:  362, 
and  in  Smith,  "Life  of  Luther,"  p.  375.     Melanchthon  wrote  July  24  to  the  same 
effect,  CR,  3:  849;   cf.  1065.     On  May  24,  Luther  wrote  to  Philip:    "I  have  re- 
ceived your  Grace's  present  of  a  cartload  of  Rhenish  wine  and  I  thank  your  Grace 
liumbly  for  it."     Lenz,  I:  361-363.     Luther  seems  to  have  received  rather  more 
than  thirty  pieces  of  silver. 

3  How  inadequate  and  mendacious  were  the  grounds  on  which  Philip  asked  for 
his  "dispensation,"  and  the  reformers  acquiesced,  are  shown  by  the  fact  that  he 
maintained  continuous  marital  relations  with  both  "wives"  after  his  bigamous 
marriage,  with  the  exception  of  his  five  years'  imprisonment,  during  which  he 
was  deprived  of  the  society  of  both.     His  lawful  consort  bore  him  three  children 
after  his  bigamy  while  he  had  seven  sons  and  one  daughter  by  his  second  "wife," 
the  last  born  in  1554.     See  the  genealogical  table  in  Mogen,  Historic,  captivitatis 
Philippi  magnanimi  Hessiae,  1766,  p.  163. 

4  Melanchthon  describes  Luther  to  his  friend  Camerarius  as  "endeavoring  to 
raise  me  from  my  desponding  state  of  mind,  not  only  by  administering  consola- 
tion, but  salutary  reproof.     If  he  had  not  come  to  me,  I  should  certainly  have 
died."     CR,  3:  1077;  cf.  account  in  Seckendorf,  iii:  314,  and  Richards'  "  Melanch- 
thon," 272-274. 


354  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

Luther  met  the  crisis  with  his  accustomed  mixture  of  bravery  and  moral 
insensibility.  He  never  would  admit,  even  to  his  own  soul,  that  he  had 
done  anything  wrong;  and  he  was  especially  vehement  in  maintaining  that 
the  Catholics  had  no  call  to  criticize  his  acts  or  words.  In  this  he  had  some 
show  of  justification:  it  was  impossible  that  the  Protestant  divines  should 
outdo  the  scandalous  things  that  the  Church  had  often  done.  But  (here 
was  the  rub)  the  Protestants  were  professing  better  things;  they  had  been 
urging  the  past  scandals  of  the  Church  as  a  reason  for  reform;  and  here 
they  were  doing  something,  not  worse  than  the  Church  had  done,  since 
that  was  impossible,  but  something  as  bad  as  her  worst.  Luther  not 
only  could  not  but  would  not  see  this,  and  he  was  now  adding  to  his 
moral  turpitude  by  professing  a  willingness  to  do  any  needful  amount  of 
hard  lying  to  cover  up  his  original  fault.  "What  is  it,"  said  he,  "if 
for  the  good  and  sake  of  the  Christian  Church  one  should  tell  a  good, 
strong  lie?"  Again  and  again  he  urged  the  Landgrave  to  deny  the 
whole  thing,  or  at  least  to  return  "an  ambiguous  answer"  to  all  questions. 
"Wftat  one  knows  only  in  a  private  capacity  one  cannot  know  publicly," 
therefore  it  is  allowable  to  make  the  private  Yes  a  public  No!  He  com- 
pared his  knowledge  of  Philip's  bigamy  to  the  knowledge  of  sin  that  the 
priest  obtains  in  the  confessional,  which  it  is  his  duty  to  deny  if  need  be ; 
and  finally  he  blasphemously  claims  for  his  untruthfulness  the  example 
of  the  Christ,  who,  though  omniscient,  declares  in  the  gospel  "The  Son 
knoweth  not  the  day. "  *  By  such  twistings  and  turnings  Luther  endeav- 
ored to  justify  the  unjustifiable. 

It  is  significant  that  none  of  the  biographers  of  Luther  have  ventured 
to  uphold  his  part  in  the  transaction.  Some  of  them  have  passed  over 
the  whole  matter  in  dishonest  silence;  few  have  had  courage  to  tell  all 
the  facts;  and  with  one  accord  they  have  pronounced  this  the  most 
deplorable  act  in  his  entire  career.  It  gave  Catholics  a  splendid  oppor- 
tunity, which  they  did  not  fail  to  improve,  to  say  to  the  world,  "Behold 

1  See  the  series  of  citations  and  letters  in  Smith,  p.  381  seq.  Bucer  was  worse 
than  Luther,  if  worse  be  possible.  The  Strassburg  divine  advised  Philip  to  issue 
this  public  declaration:  "He  was  everywhere  accused  of  having  been  forgetful 
of  his  conjugal  duty  and  honor,  and  of  having  taken  another  wife,  in  violation  of  the 
universal  laws  of  Christendom  and  the  decrees  of  the  Emperor.  Herein,  however, 
gross  injustice  was  done  him;  whoever  had  imagined  and  set  about  such  things 
were  liars  and  could  only  have  wanted  to  vent  their  personal  hatred  and  spite 
against  him.  He  was  not  so  utterly  Godforsaken  as  not  to  be  aware  that  Chris- 
tianity had  restored  the  sacred  bond  of  marriage  to  its  pristine  purity,  and  that 
not  only  ministers  of  the  Church,  but  all  Christians,  lay  or  clerical,  were  bound  to 
have  no  more  than  one  wife  or  one  husband.  He  would  be  loath  indeed,  whether 
for  himself  or  for  others,  to  violate  the  sanctity  of  God's  blessed  gift  of  marriage. 
He  begged  accordingly  that  no  credence  might  be  given  to  such  false  reports 
raised  against  him  by  his  ill-wishers."  Philip,  with  a  fine  show  of  virtue,  refused 
to  tell  this  lie.  Indeed  it  was  speedily  made  impossible  for  him  to  do  so,  by  the 
publication  of  a  pamphlet  written  by  a  Hessian  preacher  named  Lenning,  who 
took  the  fictitious  name  of  Huldreich  Neobolus,  in  which  he  openly  justified 
polygamy.  Janssen,  6:  115,  126.  Cf.  Rady,  p.  66  seq.,  89. 


THE  SCHMALKALD  WAR  35o 

the  fruits  of  Protestantism."  It  disheartened  and  weakened  the  forces 
of  reform.  Kolde  puts  it  with  sufficient  mildness  when  he  says:  "It 
is  highly  probable  that  the  beginning  of  the  decline  of  Protestantism 
as  a  political  power  coincides  with  this  marriage  of  the  Prince  of  Hesse. " 

The  closing  months  of  Clement  VII's  Pontificate  were  spent  in  consulta- 
tions and  negotiations  concerning  the  holding  of  the  long-promised 
Council.  Constitutionally  unable  to  make  a  final  decision  upon  any 
policy,  constantly  "letting  'I  dare  not'  wait  upon  'I  would,'"  he  dallied 
with  all  parties  and  satisfied  none  until  death  ended  the  game,  September 
25,  1534.  On  October  13th  following,  the  Conclave  elected  as  his  suc- 
cessor Cardinal  Alexander  Farnese,  now  sixty-seven  years  of  age,  who 
took  the  title  of  Paul  III.  The  choice  was  apparently  not  a  happy  one 
for  those  who  wished  well  to  the  Church.  The  personal  character  of 
Cardinal  Farnese  was  notoriously  bad,  and  had  been  the  main  cause  of 
his  rejection  at  two  previous  Conclaves;  he  had  a  large  number  of  illegiti- 
mate children,  some  of  whom  he  openly  acknowledged.  He  began  his 
pontificate  with  an  act  of  frank  nepotism,  by  giving  the  cardinal's  hat 
to  his  two  nephews,  aged  respectively  fourteen  and  sixteen  years.  Noth- 
ing more  scandalous  had  occurred  in  the  history  of  the  Papacy,  and  the 
future  seemed  anything  but  bright. 

Nevertheless,  the  pontificate  of  Paul  III  justifies  the  paradox  that  a 
better  man  might  have  made  a  worse  Pope.  Adrian  VI  had  been  a  pious 
and  well-intentioned  man,  but  a  failure  as  Pontiff;  Paul  III  was  essen- 
tially a  bad  man,  but  he  was  a  man  of  intelligence  and  skilled  in  the  arts 
of  diplomacy  and  government.  His  pontificate  was  therefore  a  brilliant 
one.  It  marks  a  new  spirit  and  a  new  policy  in  the  Roman  Church,  the 
rousing  of  all  its  forces  against  Protestantism,  the  beginning  of  that 
reaction  later  to  be  known  as  the  Counter-Reformation.  This  new  spirit 
was  speedily  manifested  in  the  appointment  to  the  college  of  Cardinals 
of  men  whose  ability  and  piety  permanently  raised  the  tone  of  that  body: 
Gaspari  Contarini,  Jacopo  Sadoleto,  Reginald  Pole  and  Pietro  Caraffa. 
Two  of  these  new  Cardinals,  Contarini  and  Caraffa,  already  represented 
opposing  parties  in  the  Roman  Church,  the  Liberal  and  the  Conservative; 
and  at  this  time  it  was  by  no  means  certain  which  would  obtain  the  upper 
hand.  Having  a  more  intelligent  appreciation  than  his  predecessors  of 
the  condition  of  the  Church  and  the  imperative  need  of  reform,  the  new 
Pope  appointed  a  commission  of  the  Cardinals  to  consider  this  matter, 
and  in  due  time  they  prepared  and  presented  a  plan  of  reform,  Consilium 
de  emendenda  ecclesia. 

The  authors  of  this  remarkable  document,  after  describing  the 
Church  as  not  merely  tottering,  but  actually  fallen  in  ruin,  accused 
some  of  the  former  Popes  of  having  chosen  their  ministers,  not  with 


356  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

a  view  to  learn  from  them  what  their  duty  required,  but  in  order  to 
have  cunning  advocates  to  prove  that  it  was  lawful  for  Popes  to  do 
what  they  pleased.  "Hence,  as  flattery  attends  princes  as  the  shadow 
does  the  body,  doctors  began  to  teach  that,  as  the  Popes  were  the 
lords  of  all  benefices,  they  could  not  be  guilty  of  simony,  inasmuch 
as  they  sold  what  was  their  own  property.  From  which  source,  as 
from  the  Trojan  horse,  so  many  abuses  and  such  grievous  diseases 
have  broken  into  the  Church  of  God  that  we  now  see  it  laboring  almost 
without  a  hope  of  salvation  and  the  name  of  Christ  blasphemed 
by  the  unbelieving  through  our  fault;  we  say  it  again,  through 
our  own  fault."  From  this  introduction  they  proceed  to  enu- 
merate the  abuses  which  prevailed  in  the  Church:  Abuses  in 
dispensing  with  its  laws.  In  ordaining  ignorant  youths  of  the 
vilest  birth  and  of  the  worst  morals.  "Hence  arise  innumerable 
scandals,  contempt  for  the  ecclesiastical  order,  and  the  veneration 
for  divine  services  not  only  lessened,  but  now  very  nearly  extinct." 
In  the  bestowal  of  benefices,  and  above  all  of  bishoprics,  on  non- 
residents. In  the  imposition  of  pensions  on  benefices,  in  favor  of 
wealthy  ecclesiastics,  and  the  consequent  withdrawal  of  what  was 
intended  for  the  support  of  divine  service  and  of  the  incumbents. 
Exchanges  of  livings  by  agreements,  "which  are  all  simoniacal,  and 
in  which  nothing  is  regarded  but  money."  The  bequest  of  benefices 
and  bishoprics  by  dispensations,  nullifying  the  law  that  the  children 
of  priests  should  not  inherit  the  benefices  of  their  fathers.  Abuses 
in  expectations  and  reservations.  In  conferring  several  incompatible 
benefices  and  even  bishoprics  on  the  same  person.  In  granting  not 
one,  but  several  bishoprics  to  cardinals.  "We  think  this  matter  is  of 
the  greatest  importance  to  the  Church  of  God;  for  the  office  of  car- 
dinals and  bishops  are  inconsistent.  A  cardinal  assists  the  Pope  in 
governing  the  whole  Church,  whereas  the  duty  of  the  bishop  is  to 
feed  his  sheep,  which  he  cannot  do  unless  he  dwells  among  them." 
Non-residence  of  bishops  and  beneficed  clergymen.  "For,  in  the 
name  of  God,  what  sight  can  be  more  afflicting  to  a  Christian  man 
than  to  see  the  solitude  of  the  churches.  Almost  all  the  pastors  have 
deserted  their  flocks,  and  the  faithful  are  given  over  to  mere  merce- 
naries." Neglect  of  their  duties  by  the  cardinals.  Abuses  and  im- 
pediments thrown  in  the  way  of  bishops  attempting  to  govern  their 
dioceses  and  to  punish  the  guilty.  "For  bad  men  obtain  exemption 
from  the  authority  of  their  bishops,  or  if  they  cannot  obtain  an  ex- 
emption they  immediately  betake  themselves  to  the  office  of  the  Da- 
tary  and  there  secure  immunity  for  money. "  In  the  religious  orders. 
"We  are  of  opinion  that  all  conventual  orders  should  be  abolished, 
but  in  order  to  prevent  injury  to  any  one,  it  will  be  sufficient  to  decree 
that  no  new  members  be  admitted."  Public  sacrilege  in  many 
monasteries.  Impious  and  irreverent  treatment  of  sacred  subjects 
in  the  public  schools,  especially  in  Italy;  "nay,  in  the  very  churches. " 
Abuses  in  the  deception  of  country  and  simple  folk  by  the  innumer- 
able superstitions  introduced  by  the  qusestuarii  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  of 
St.  Anthony,  and  others  of  this  sort.  "We  think  that  these  quses- 
tuarii  should  be  abolished. "  Abuses  in  absolution  for  simony.  "To 
what  a  height,  in  the  name  of  decency,  has  this  pestilent  vice  come 


THE  SCHMALKALD  WAR  357 

to  in  the  Church  of  God,  so  that  some  are  not  ashamed  to  commit 
simony  and  then  to  seek,  nay  buy,  absolution  for  the  offence,  while 
retaining  the  benefices  they  purchased. "  In  bequeathing  the  goods 
of  the  Church  as  private  property,  in  indulgences,  and  in  the  transfer 
of  legacies  given  for  pious  uses  to  the  surviving  relatives  for  money. 
The  scandal  given  to  all  foreigners  by  the  corrupt  manners  of  the  city 
of  Rome,  and  by  the  open  exhibition  of  shameless  immorality  by 
ecclesiastics  in  its  streets. 

The  scheme  of  reform  ends  with  these  words:  "If  we  have  not 
done  justice  to  the  magnitude  of  the  trust  reposed  in  us,  we  have  at 
least  satisfied  our  conscience,  not  without  hope  that  in  your  reign  we 
shall  see  the  Church  of  God  purged,  at  peace  with  herself,  and  united 
into  one  body.  You  have  taken  the  name  of  Paul :  we  trust  you  will 
imitate  his  charity.  As  he  was  chosen  to  spread  the  knowledge  of 
the  name  of  Christ  among  the  heathen,  we  hope  that  you  were  elected 
to  restore,  in  our  hearts  and  in  our  works,  that  holy  name  which  is 
now  forgotten  by  the  nations  and  by  us  ecclesiastics,  to  cure  our 
sickness,  to  collect  the  flock  into  one  fold,  and  to  save  us  from  the 
wrath  of  God  and  from  the  punishment  which  we  have  deserved  and 
which  is  now  ready  to  fall  upon  us. " 1 

These  proposals  were  much  too  bold  and  sweeping  for  acceptance  by 
the  Curia,  which  had  indeed  come  to  see  the  necessity  of  reform,  yet 
stood  shivering  on  the  brink,  and  for  the  time  took  that  attitude  which 
modern  politicians  have  made  so  familiar,  of  "favoring  the  general  prin- 
ciple, but  opposing  this  particular  measure."  As  by  the  Catholics  these 
propositions  were  regarded  as  too  radical,  so  by  the  Protestants  they  were 
deemed  not  thorough  enough,  and  besides  their  good  faith  was  questioned. 
The  Consilium  was  quietly  suppressed  at  Rome,  but  was  surreptitiously 
printed,  and  Luther  reissued  it  in  1638  with  sarcastic  comments  of  his 
own.2 

In  the  meantime  matters  had  been  moving  rapidly.  Paul  III  was  an 
Italian  prince,  but  he  had  not  the  family  relations  of  Clement  VII  to 
bias  all  his  political  views  and  hamper  his  ecclesiastical  action.  He  early 
decided  that  the  Council  so  long  demanded  and  promised  should  be  held, 
but  before  issuing  his  call  sent  to  Germany  as  his  special  envoy  Cardinal 
Vergerio,  who  had  long  been  an  enthusiastic  advocate  of  a  council  as 
the  only  means  of  preventing  the  complete  overthrow  of  the  Catholic 
religion.  It  was  Vergerio's  mission  to  smooth  away  difficulties,  and  if 
possible  to  obtain  some  pledge  in  advance  from  the  Protestants  that  they 
would  submit  their  claims  to  the  Council  and  abide  by  its  decision.  He 

1  This  scheme  was  afterwards  put  on  the  Index  by  Paul  IV,  though  as  Cardinal 
Caraffa  he  had  been  instrumental  in  drawing  it  up!  This  is  probably  the  only 
instance  of  a  Pope  putting  his  own  writings  on  the  Index.  If  anyone  questions 
whether  the  reformers  were  justified  in  their  charges  of  corruption  in  the  Roman 
Church,  he  should  carefully  study  this  document.  Original  in  Le  Plat,  Monumenta 
ad  historiam  Concilii  Tridentini,  Louvain,  1782,  2:  596-597. 

»Walch,   10:  1971  seq. 


358  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

had  an  interview  with  Luther  at  Wittenberg  at  which  the  reformer  took 
special  pains  to  be  impudent  to  the  papal  representative  ("I  played  the 
genuine  Luther,"  was  his  way  of  putting  it),  but  promised  to  attend  the 
Council  if  summoned.  On  June  2,  1536,  the  bull  summoning  the  Council 
was  issued,  naming  Mantua  as  the  place  and  the  following  May  as  the 
time  of  meeting.  The  die  was  now  cast;  a  Council  had  become  a  cer- 
tainty. 

The  Protestants  were  now  in  an  awkward  dilemma.  They  had  all 
along  been  professing  themselves  ready  and  anxious  to  submit  their  cause 
to  a  general  Council.  So  late  as  October  14,  1529,  they  had  issued  a 
formal  signed  appeal  for  the  holding  of  such  a  Council.1  Now  they  must 
either  appear  before  the  coming  Council  with  the  certainty  that  they 
would  be  condemned,  or  cease  forever  to  make  such  professions.  To  do 
the  latter  they  were  most  unwilling,  for  it  would  discredit  the  sincerity 
of  their  previous  professions  and  claims.  But  they  were  still  less  willing 
to  do  the  former,  since  it  would  put  them  at  once  in  the  position  of  schis- 
matics, heretics  and  rebels. 

At  once  they  chose  their  ground:  they  would  refuse  to  have  anything  to 
do  with  the  Council,2  on  the  pretext  that  it  was  not  "free,"  and  because 
Germany  in  particular  would  have  no  fair  representation  in  it.  For  this 
refusal  they  were  able  to  find  at  least  a  partial  justification  in  the  fact 
that  representation  of  their  party  was  ignored  in  the  papal  summons. 
But  what  else  could  they  have  expected?  The  Council  was  to  be  con- 
stituted, like  all  previous  ecumenical  councils  in  the  history  of  the  Church, 
of  the  bishops  of  the  Catholic  Church,  and  the  Lutherans  had  no  bishops. 
It  is  true  that,  from  the  Council  of  Nice  down,  inferior  clergy  had  been 
admitted  to  the  floor  of  Councils  as  an  act  of  grace,  but  they  had  no 
vote — the  final  decision  had  always  rested  with  the  bishops.  Is  it  pos- 
sible that  this  difficulty  had  never  presented  itself  to  the  Lutherans,  or 
that,  having  duly  considered  it,  they  had  any  real  expectation  that  the 
constitution  of  a  council  would  be  revolutionized  for  their  benefit?  One 
cannot  escape  the  conclusion  that  the  Lutherans  had  not  been  sincere 
in  their  vociferous  demands  hitherto  for  a  general  Council,  and  their 
frequent  pledges  to  abide  by  the  decision  of  such  a  body.  So  long  as  there 
was  little  prospect  that  such  a  Council  would  be  held,  this  was  a  good 
battle  cry,  a  plausible  plea  to  put  forward  to  justify  their  attitude  of 
opposition  to  the  old  Church. 

The  Elector  of  Saxony  received  the  papal  bull  with  great  disfavor  and 

1  Walch,  16:  492. 

2  "Hitherto  the  Protestants  had  claimed  to  be  a  party  within  the  Old  Church 
and  had  repeatedly  requested  a  council  to  decide  on  the  orthodoxy  of  their  claims. 
Now,  however,  they  boldly  proclaimed  that  their  communion  was  distinct  from 
that  of  Rome."     Smith,  p.  308.- 


THE  SCHMALKALD  WAR  359 

summoned  a  meeting  of  the  Protestant  Estates  at  Schmalkald  in  February, 
1537.  Luther  was  commissioned  to  draw  up  a  new  statement  of  beliefs, 
suitable  to  be  presented  to  the  Council,  and  the  result  of  his  labors  was  the 
Schmalkald  Articles.1  As  fierce  and  warlike  as  Melanchthon  was  irenic, 
Luther  produced  a  very  different  document  from  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession. There  is  no  longer  any  attempt  to  conceal  or  soften  the  Lutheran 
beliefs,  but  rather  they  are  asserted  with  a  boldness  and  clearness  that 
leave  no  doubt  of  their  wide  departure  from  the  ancient  Catholic  Faith. 
As  to  their  general  tone,  let  this  single  extract  testify:  "Lastly  he  [the 
Pope]  is  purely  and  simply  a  devil,  for  over  against  God  he  pushes  on  his 
lies  about  masses,  purgatory,  monkery,  good  works  and  divine  service, 
and  damns,  kills  and  persecutes  all  Christians  who  refuse  to  extol  and 
honor  those  abominations  of  his  above  all  things.  As  soon,  therefore,  can 
we  adore  the  devil  himself  for  our  Lord  and  God  as  we  can  tolerate  the  rule 
of  his  Apostle,  the  Pope  or  Antichrist.  For  to  lie  and  murder,  to  send 
body  and  soul  to  eternal  damnation,  this  is  in  truth  the  popish  rule."2 
The  articles  were  signed  by  a  large  number  of  Lutheran  theologians  and 
have  ever  since  formed  part  of  the  official  confession  of  Lutheranism, 
though  they  did  not  receive  formal  sanction  until  the  adoption  of  the 
Book  of  Concord  (1580),  of  which  they  form  a  part.  Melanchthon,  how- 
ever, thought  fit  to  qualify  his  subscription,  and  the  declaration  that  the 
articles  as  a  whole  are  "right  and  Christian,"  by  this  proviso:  "But  of 
the  Pope  I  hold  that  if  he  will  permit  the  gospel,  the  government  of  the 
bishops  which  he  now  has  from  others  may  be  jure  humano  also  conceded 
to  him  by  us,  for  the  sake  of  peace  and  the  common  tranquillity  of  those 
Christians  who  are,  or  may  hereafter  be,  under  him. " 

Luther  having  been  taken  ill  and  in  consequence  being  compelled  to 
leave  for  home,  Melanchthon  was  commissioned  to  express  further  the 
attitude  of  the  princes.  This  he  did  most  unwillingly,  as  his  letters  in- 
form us,  but  in  their  name  he  composed  a  little  treatise  concerning  the 
power  and  primacy  of  the  Pope,  which  was  also  signed  by  the  theologians 
present  and  became  known  as  the  Appendix  to  the  Schmalkald  Articles.3 
In  this  he  went  nearly  as  far  as  Luther,  though  with  less  violence  of 
language.  With  this  Appendix,  the  articles  became  a  declaration  of  war 
against  Rome,  which  hardly  needed  the  formal  answer  of  the  princes, 
sent  March  5,  1537,  to  show  that  reunion  with  Rome  was  now  hopeless. 
The  Pope,  indeed,  by  calling  the  Council  had  done  what  Luther  could 
never  do — he  had  made  it  impossible  for  the  Lutherans  to  go  back.  It 

1  The  German  original  may  be  found  in  LDS,  25:  109  seq.;  Walch,  16:  1916  seq. 
English  version,  Jacobs,  "Concord,"  1:  303  seq. 

1  Part  II,  Art.  iv,  Of  the  Papacy,  Jacobs,  1 :  320. 

3  CR,  III:  271.  Given  from  Veit  Dieterich's  translation  into  German,  long  sup- 
posed to  be  the  original,  by  Jacobs,  "Concord,"  1:  338-352. 


360  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

was  like  the  burning  of  his  ships  by  Cortez,  thenceforth  they  must  con- 
quer or  be  conquered;  retreat  was  no  longer  a  possibility. 

The  princes  based  their  refusal1  to  take  part  in  the  proposed  Council  on 
the  grounds,  principally,  that  it  was  not  to  be  held  on  German  soil,  as 
they  had  all  along  demanded,  and  that  their  case  was  virtually  pre- 
judged, since  they  were  described  in  the  bull  as  " condemned  heretics." 
It  was  even  proposed  to  hold  a  counter-council  at  Augsburg,  at  which 
nothing  should  be  proposed  or  settled  that  was  not  based  on  the  Scrip- 
tures. No  human  decrees,  ordinances  or  writings  should  be  adduced  in 
matters  that  belong  to  faith  or  conscience.  Hopes  were  even  entertained 
that  the  Emperor  could  be  induced  to  attend  such  a  council.  But  this 
project  of  the  Saxon  Elector  was  wrecked  on  the  insuperable  difficulty  of 
securing  unity  among  the  Protestants  themselves.  A  fine  business  it 
would  be  to  hold  a  council  of  their  own,  and  fall  to  wrangling  about  doc- 
trines, breaking  up  finally  in  disorder  with  nothing  accomplished,  the  butt 
of  the  jeers  of  all  Europe!  So  the  Saxon  theologians  represented  the 
matter  to  the  Elector,  who  in  the  end  saw  the  point  and  reluctantly 
abandoned  his  pet  project. 

The  effect  of  the  Schmalkald  meeting  was  sobering;  it  gave  an  impulse 
toward  Protestant  unity  more  powerful  than  any  felt  previously.  Luther 
and  Melanchthon  were  at  least  partially  convinced  of  the  error  of  their 
former  ways,  that  they  had  treated  the  Swiss  as  enemies  when  the  latter 
were  disposed  to  be  brothers,  and  by  thus  promoting  disunion  they  had 
weakened  the  Protestant  cause.  More  than  two  years  before  the  Schmal- 
kald meeting  overtures  toward  a  better  understanding  had  been  made 
by  the  Zwinglians,  and  particularly  by  Martin  Bucer,  of  Strassburg.  In 
December,  1534,  Melanchthon  and  Bucer  had  a  conference  at  Cassel, 
in  which  they  agreed  on  the  following  statement  regarding  the  eucharist: 
"That  the  body  of  Christ  is  really  and  truly  received,  when  we  receive 
the  sacrament;  and  bread  and  wine  are  signs,  signa  exhibitiva,  which  being 
given  and  received  the  body  of  Christ  is  at  the  same  time  given  and 
received;  and  we  hold  that  the  bread  and  body  are  together,  not  by  a 
mixing  of  their  substances,  but  as  a  sacrament,  and  are  given  with  the 
sacrament.  As  both  parties  hold  that  bread  and  wine  remain,  they  hold 
that  there  is  a  sacramental  conjunction."2 

Luther  was  pleased  to  receive  this  statement  with  favor  and  now  for  the 
first  time  regarded  union  with  the  Swiss  as  possible  and  desirable.  The 
agreement  was  submitted  to  other  theologians  on  both  sides  and  generally 
approved.  A  more  formal  conference  of  a  larger  body  of  delegates  was 
now  arranged,  and  was  held  at  Wittenberg,  May  22,  1536.  Luther 

1  Luther  and  Melanchthon  were  not  in  favor  of  refusing  to  take  part  in  the 
Council.  See  the  opinion  in  CR,  3:  121,  and  De  Wette,  6:  51. 

8  CR,  2:  808. 


THE  SCHMALKALD  WAR  361 

insisted  that  the  Swiss  should  renounce  their  earlier  opinion  and  confess 
the  real  presence  of  Christ  in  the  sacrament.  Bucer  and  his  associates 
consented  to  this,  so  far  as  worthy  communicants  are  concerned,  but  still 
denied  that  the  real  Christ  is  received  by  the  wicked.  Luther  professed 
himself  satisfied,  and  the  hand  of  brotherly  recognition  was  mutually 
given  and  received.  Melanchthon  now  drew  up  articles  of  agreement, 
since  known  as  the  Wittenberg  Concord;1  and  on  May  29th  these  were 
subscribed  by  twenty-one  persons  present.  With  regard  to  the  eucharist, 
the  articles  affirm  "that  with  the  bread  and  wine  the  body  and  blood  of 
Christ  are  truly  and  substantially  present,  presented  and  received. " 

From  being  unwilling  to  do  anything  toward  union,  Luther  had  now 
become  desirous  of  doing  more  than  was  possible — he  always  saw  facts 
through  the  medium  of  his  own  thought  and  emotion,  never  as  they  were. 
He  now  hoped  that  both  sides  might  "bury  the  past  and  roll  a  stone  on 
it."  He  might  have  accomplished  this  at  Marburg,  if  he  could  have 
been  persuaded  then  to  show  the  spirit  of  moderation  and  conciliation 
that  he  had  now  displayed  at  Wittenberg.  But  the  favorable  oppor- 
tunity had  passed,  never  to  return.  Too  many  bitter  things  had  been 
said,  too  many  hostile  things  had  been  done,  for  peace  to  be  made  so 
easily  and  oblivion  to  follow  so  soon.  Melanchthon  saw  more  clearly, 
and  said  that  the  gulf  between  the  two  parties  was  too  wide  to  be  bridged 
by  a  mere  form  of  words.  Moreover,  he  knew  better  than  Luther  the 
temper  of  the  Zwinglians,  and  rightly  apprehended  that  further  conflict 
was  more  probable  than  sudden  peace.  He  believed  that  the  Swiss 
delegates  at  Wittenberg  had  made  larger  concessions  for  the  sake  of 
peace  than  their  churches  would  approve.  So  the  fact  proved  to  be; 
there  was  great  opposition  to  the  Concord  among  the  Zwinglians  on 
theological  grounds,  but  for  political  reasons  many  of  them  waived  their 
objections,  at  least  for  the  time.  The  Concord  was  formally  approved 
by  most  of  the  Zwinglian  towns  of  Germany:  Memmingen,  Kempten, 
Esslingen,  Reutlingen,  Ulm,  Augsburg,  Frankfurt.  At  Constance,  Lindau 
and  Isny  there  were  serious  dissensions,  the  people  believing  that  Bucer 
and  his  colleagues  had  conceded  too  much. 

In  consequence  of  these  continued  difficulties,  the  Elector  of  Saxony 
at  the  Schmalkald  meeting  took  the  affair  out  of  the  hands  of  the  theo- 
logians, believing  that  a  change  of  policy  was  imperative,  and  that  union 
with  the  Zwinglians  must  be  had  at  any  reasonable  price.  It  was  in 
effect  decided  that  the  terms  of  the  Concord  should  stand  as  a  formal 
basis  of  union,  but  each  party  should  interpret  them  in  their  own  way. 
This  was,  in  almost  so  many  words,  an  agreement  to  disagree,  but  to  seek 

1  German  original  in  CR,  3:  75  seq.;  Walch,  17:  2087  seq.  English  version  in 
Jacobs,  "Concord,"  2:  254. 


362  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

united  action  without  insisting  as  hitherto  on  absolute  theological  iden- 
tity. It  was  a  great  pity  for  the  cause  of  Protestantism  that  so  sensible 
and  Christian  a  conclusion  could  not  have  been  reached  years  before, 
and  that  it  could  not  be  consistently  followed  even  now.  Luther  at 
first  stoutly  opposed  the  new  policy,  but  he  finally  yielded  to  the  Elector, 
and  on  December  1,  1537,  he  wrote  a  pacific  letter  to  the  towns  of  Zurich, 
Berne,  Schaffhausen  and  St.  Gall.  "As  to  any  points  on  which  we  cannot 
quite  come  to  an  understanding,"  he  wrote  very  sensibly,  "it  is  best  that 
we  should  leave  them  for  the  present,  and  keep  on  friendly  terms  together 
till  the  troubled  waters  have  subsided."1  By  this  understanding  with 
the  Swiss,  though  no  formal  alliance  was  concluded,  and  by  the  admission 
to  the  Schmalkald  League  of  Zwinglian  towns  of  South  Germany,  the 
position  of  the  Protestants  was  greatly  strengthened,  and  the  danger  of 
a  war  of  religion  became  less  pressing. 

From  the  beginning  of  the  Reformation,  two  influential  princes  of 
Northern  Germany  had  remained  staunchly  Catholic,  and  had  been  the 
chief  obstacle  to  the  extension  of  the  new  faith  in  that  region.  Death 
now  removed  these  two  barriers  to  the  progress  of  the  reform.  In  1535 
Joachim  I,  the  Elector  of  Brandenburg,  passed  away  and  was  succeeded 
by  his  son,  Joachim  II.  The  father  had  remained  a  zealous  Catholic 
to  the  last,  and  had  done  more  than  any  other  man,  save  Duke  George 
of  Saxony,  to  hold  the  North  to  the  old  ways.  The  son  was  from  the 
beginning  inclined  to  the  evangelical  faith,  and  in  1539  openly  introduced 
the  Reformation  into  his  domains.  Not  a  member  of  the  Schmalkald 
League,  he  was  able  to  act  as  a  mediator  between  that  party  and  the 
Emperor,  and  his  policy  did  much  to  prolong  the  peace  and  postpone 
the  final  inevitable  conflict. 

The  death  of  Duke  George,  April  15,  1539,  removed  the  strongest 
remaining  prop  of  the  Catholic  Church  in  Germany.  Conservatism, 
rather  than  opposition  to  evangelical  truth,  had  kept  him  all  his  life  in 
the  Church  of  his  fathers.  He  died  expressing  faith  in  the  grace  of  Christ. 
One  who  obtains  his  entire  knowledge  of  Duke  George  from  Luther's 
intemperate  scoldings,  will  have  an  idea  of  his  character  as  untrue  as 
unfavorable.  There  was  much  to  admire  in  the  sturdy  old  man,  and  we 
need  not  wonder  that  he  found  not  a  little  to  reprehend  in  the  course  of 
Luther  and  in  the  rude  peasant  manners  that  the  latter  carefully  culti- 
vated toward  all  his  adversaries.  His  importance  to  the  Catholic 
party  was  not  overestimated  when  Duke  Henry  of  Brunswick  irreverently 
exclaimed  that  he  would  rather  God  in  heaven  were  dead  than  Duke 
George;  for  the  Duke  was  able  and  willing  to  do  for  the  Catholics  of 
Northern  Germany  what  the  Almighty  would  not  do.  The  successor  in 

*De  Wette,  5:  83  seq. 


THE  SCHMALKALD  WAR  363 

the  duchy  was  his  brother  Henry,  already  a  Lutheran.  At  the  feast  of 
Whitsuntide,  the  reformed  rites  were  for  the  first  time  celebrated  in 
Leipzig  and  thereafter  were  gradually  extended  throughout  the  duchy. 
A  visitation  of  all  the  churches,  under  the  direction  of  Luther  and  some 
of  his  Wittenberg  colleagues,  did  much  to  extend  and  make  permanent 
the  Protestantism  of  ducal  Saxony.  Henry's  reign  was  brief;  he  died  in 
1541  and  was  succeeded  by  his  son  Moritz  (Maurice),  who  had  married 
a  daughter  of  Landgrave  Philip  of  Hesse.  Northern  Germany  was  now 
practically  a  unit  for  Protestantism,  and  the  cause  should  have  been  so 
strengthened  by  these  changes  as  to  be  secure  against  attack.  But 
jealousies  were  soon  manifest;  especially  Duke  Moritz  was  at  odds  with 
his  cousin,  John  Frederick  of  Electoral  Saxony,  and  out  of  this  personal 
and  family  quarrel  grew  a  great  disaster  to  the  Protestant  cause. 

Within  the  next  few  years,  the  Protestants  assumed  a  more  aggressive 
attitude  than  ever,  and  their  continued  progress  gave  the  remaining 
Catholic  estates  of  the  Empire  cause  for  serious  alarm.  It  began  to 
seem  probable  that  the  Reformation  would  sweep  all  before  it,  and  end 
by  transforming  the  entire  Empire.  The  fresh  encroachments  of  the 
Protestants  on  Catholic  territory  set  at  defiance  the  Peace  of  Niirnberg, 
and  showed  that  they  would  be  bound  by  no  engagements  from  extending 
their  faith  whenever  and  wherever  they  had  opportunity.  They  were 
no  longer  content  with  mere  toleration;  they  plainly  aimed  at  domina- 
tion. The  new  religion  was  to  be  the  means  by  which  the  princely 
oligarchy  should  completely  triumph  over  the  imperial  power;  and  next 
to  this  it  was  to  be  the  means  by  which  the  free  cities  should  establish 
themselves  in  such  independence  as  would  mean  their  practical  secession 
from  the  Empire. 

The  new  line  of  progress  was  largely  the  secularization  of  the  great 
episcopates,  the  remaining  strongholds  of  Catholicism.  The  bishop 
of  Naumberg  died  in  1541,  and  the  Elector  of  Saxony  used  his  power  to 
make  Nicholas  Amsdorf  his  successor.  Luther  took  the  principal  part 
in  the  ordination  of  the  new  bishop,  thereby  emphasizing  the  break  be- 
tween this  See  and  Rome.1  In  1542  the  See  of  Meissen  was  protestantized 
in  similar  fashion,  Duke  Moritz  being  given  a  free  hand  in  dealing  with 
its  affairs.  Regensberg,  in  Southern  Germany  took  a  similar  course. 
In  the  same  year  the  Landgrave  of  Hesse  invaded  the  duchy  of  Brunswick, 
drove  out  Duke  Henry  and  forcibly  introduced  the  Reformation.  The 
city  of  Hildesheim  expelled  its  bishop  in  1544,  with  the  connivance  if 
not  assistance  of  the  Lutherans,  and  Bugenhagen  was  active  in  estab- 
lishing the  new  Lutheran  church  there.  But  most  disquieting  of  all, 

1  See  documents  in  Walch,  17:  56  seq.  Charles  V  tried  in  vain  to  secure  con- 
secration of  Julius  von  Pflug,  a  Catholic. 


364  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

the  Elector  and  Archbishop  of  Cologne,  Count  Hermann  von  Weid, 
adopted  the  Lutheran  views  and  attempted  to  reform  his  diocese.  He 
called  Bucer  and  Melanchthon  to  his  aid,  and  in  spite  of  the  opposition 
of  his  chapter  and  the  town  council,  carried  out  a  drastic  system  of  re- 
form, without  nominally  separating  from  the  Catholic  Church.  In  1543 
he  sought  admission  to  the  Schmalkald  League,  thus  practically  avow- 
ing himself  a  Protestant.  This  was  perhaps  to  the  Catholics  the  worst 
grievance  of  all — to  lose  this  historic  and  powerful  See  was  something 
that  could  not  be  contemplated  with  patience.  Moreover,  it  would  have 
the  most  serious  consequences  for  the  Empire,  for,  at  the  next  imperial 
vacancy,  there  was  a  good  prospect  (if  not  a  certainty)  of  a  Protestant 
majority  in  the  Electoral  College.1  This  attempted  reformation  of 
Cologne  may  be  taken  as  the  turning-point  in  the  plans  of  Charles  V. 
He  had  never  abandoned  the  hope  of  making  the  Empire  once  more 
fully  Catholic;  henceforth  that  became  not  so  much  a  hope  as  an  irre- 
vocable determination.  However  he  might  dissemble,  he  had  closer  to 
his  heart  than  anything  else  the  project  of  overcoming  Protestantism  by 
force  of  arms  and  restoring  to  Germany  at  once  religious  unity  and  real 
imperial  authority. 

Still,  as  he  was  not  yet  prepared  for  war,  he  did  dissemble  for  some 
years  and  apparently  lent  himself  in  good  faith  to  the  various  attempts 
that  were  made  to  find  some  terms  of  workable  compromise  before  appeal- 
ing to  the  sword.  On  the  Protestant  side,  Melanchthon  was  as  sanguine 
as  ever  that  something  might  yet  be  accomplished.  At  the  Diet  of 
Worms,  January,  1541,  he  had  a  long  colloquy  with  his  old  opponent 
Eck,  but  no  agreement  could  be  reached.2  The  debate  centered  chiefly  on 
the  doctrine  of  original  sin,  and  Melanchthon  showed  far  greater  knowl- 
edge of  the  Scripture,  while  Eck  as  always  surpassed  in  dialectic  skill. 
At  one  point  in  the  debate,  Eck  advanced  an  argument  that  was  new 
to  Melanchthon,  and  he  promised  an  answer  the  next  day,  after  he  had 
opportunity  to  reflect  on  it.  Eck  said  tauntingly,  "Oh,  there  is  no  honor 
in  that,  if  you  cannot  answer  me  immediately. "  To  which  Melanchthon 
made  the  dignified  and  worthy  rejoinder,  "My  good  Doctor,  I  am  not 
seeking  my  own  glory  in  this  cause,  but  truth.  I  say  then,  God  willing, 
you  shall  have  an  answer  to-morrow." 

The  colloquy  was  adjourned  to  Regensberg  the  following  April,  and 
this  was  perhaps  the  most  important  of  all  the  attempts  to  bring  about 
-  a  better  understanding  between  Catholics  and  Protestants.  The  Emperor 

*For  these  Protestant  aggressions  see  Seckendorf,  3:  435  seq.;  Spalatin,  An- 
incdes,  683. 

2  A  large  collection  of  documents  regarding  the  Worms  Colloquy  in  Walch, 
17:  388-555.  See  also,  Moses,  Die  Religionsverhandlungen  zu  Hagenau  und 
Worms,  1540  und  1541.  Jena,  1899. 


THE  SCHMALKALD  WAR  365 

himself  interposed  and  seemingly  did  his  best  to  make  something  practical 
come  out  of  it.  Contarini,  the  most  liberal  of  Catholics,  represented  his 
party.  Not  only  Melanchthon  but  Bucer  and  Calvin  were  invited  and 
came;  and  this  was  the  beginning  of  a  friendship  between  Calvin  and 
Melanchthon  that  endured  as  long  as  their  lives.  As  a  result  of  the  debate 
here,  agreement  was  reached  on  the  statement  of  certain  doctrines: 
Justification,  freedom  of  man,  original  sin,  baptism,  good  works  and 
episcopacy.1  But  further  progress  proved  again  impossible.  Melanch- 
thon stood  by  the  doctrine  of  his  Confession,  and  with  unexpected  spirit 
declared  that  he  would  rather  die  than  yield  anything  against  his  con- 
science. He  had  at  last  been  brought  to  see  that  the  differences  between 
Protestants  and  Catholics  were  irreconcilable  by  any  ingenuity  of  dubious 
and  circumlocutory  phrases.  Yet  this  was  the  time  for  accomplishment, 
if  ever.  The  Emperor  and  the  Roman  Curia  were  in  a  more  con- 
ciliatory mood  than  they  had  ever  been  before  or  would  ever 
be  again.  They  made  no  inconsiderable  concessions,  and  conde- 
scended to  argue  points  about  which  they  had  previously  spoken 
but  the  one  word,  "Submit."  Had  the  same  spirit  of  conciliation 
and  discussion  of  differences  been  shown  back  in  1520,  there  might 
have  been  a  far  different  history  to  record.  But  the  new  spirit  came 
too  late;  matters  had  now  reached  a  point  where  compromise  was  out 
of  the  question. 

While  the  conferences  were  in  progress,  Philip  of  Hesse  made  a  secret 
compact  with  the  Emperor,  in  which  he  engaged  to  do  all  in  his  power 
to  secure  an  agreement,  and  henceforth  to  support  the  Emperor's  cause; 
to  recognize  Ferdinand  as  Emperor  after  the  death  of  Charles;  and  to 
contract  no  alliance  with  France,  England,  or  other  foreign  powers,  or 
permit  foreign  potentates  to  be  admitted  into  the  Schmalkald  League. 
In  return  Charles  took  the  Landgrave  "into  his  special  favor,  friendship 
and  protection,"  and  granted  pardon  "for  all  his  past  proceedings, " 
which  of  course  included  his  bigamy  with  many  other  offenses.  The 
Emperor  hoped  by  this  course  to  weaken  the  Schmalkald  League  and 
gain  a  strong  ally  for  himself  from  the  Protestant  princes  of  Germany. 
It  was  a  bad  stroke  of  policy,  for  it  freed  Philip  from  all  fear  of  conse- 
quences for  his  bigamy,  and  gave  him  full  scope  to  plot  any  political 
treachery  he  might  please. 

One  last  attempt  was  made  to  avert  the  impending  war.  The  Diet 
at  Speyer  in  1544  passed  a  recess,  in  spite  of  the  Catholic  opposition, 
that  promised  something.  It  extended  the  Peace  of  Niirnberg,  and 
declared  that  nothing  could  settle  the  questions  in  dispute  but  the  hold- 

1  Walch,  17:  556-1405.  This  is  known  in  Reformation  literature  as  the 
"Regensburg  book."  See  on  this  colloquy,  Vetter,  Die  Religionsverhandlungen 
auf  dem  Reichstoge  zu  Regensburg,  1541.  Jena,  1889. 


366  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

ing  of  a  general,  free  Christian  Council  of  the  German  nation.1  Both 
parties  were  to  present  plans  of  reform  at  the  next  Diet  at  Worms,  and  a 
friendly  agreement  should  again  be  attempted  on  this  basis.  The  Pope 
was  highly  indignant,  and  in  a  brief  to  the  Emperor  declared  that  "a 
host  of  evil  spirits,  actuated  by  hatred  against  the  Roman  Church,  must 
have  led  the  Emperor  thus  grossly  astray  at  Speyer;  by  this  recess  Charles 
has  jeoparded  his  own  soul  and  introduced  confusion  into  the  Church."2 
But  Charles  was  not  disturbed  by  this  censure;  he  would  no  doubt  have 
been  glad  to  restore  peace  and  unity  to  Germany  without  a  war,  if  such 
a  thing  had  been  possible;  and  the  matter  was  duly  taken  up  at  Worms, 
early  in  1545.  Melanchthon  and  other  of  the  Wittenberg  theologians 
had  prepared  a  new  and  temperate  treatise  on  the  principles  of  reform, 
called  the  Wittenbergische  Reformation.3  It  insisted  on  pure  evangelical 
doctrine  as  a  prime  necessity,  but  made  considerable  concessions  in 
matters  of  ritual  and  discipline,  particularly  as  to  the  authority  of  bishops. 
Another  conference  at  Regensburg  was  proposed  by  the  Emperor,  but 
nothing  came  of  it — nothing  could  come  of  it.4  Charles  was  quite  as 
slow  as  Melanchthon  to  learn  that  the  differences  between  Catholics 
and  Protestants  were  fundamental  and  irreconcilable. 

Luther  had  from  the  first  been  opposed  to  the  employment  of  force, 
even  in  self-defense.  This  was  no  hastily  adopted  and  ill-considered 
theory  with  him,  but  a  deliberate  judgment  by  which  he  was  ready  to 
stand,  no  matter  what  the  consequences  to  himself.  For  many  years 
he  steadfastly  resisted  every  inducement  to  modify  this  opinion;  the  only 
exception  that  he  made  was  in  the  case  of  rulers,  who  Were  charged  by 
God  with  the  duty  of  protecting  their  subjects,  and  might  use  force  for 
that  purpose.  But  even  a  ruler  owed  obedience  to  the  Emperor  and 
might  not  resist  him,  any  more  than  a  peasant  might  resist  his  prince. 
As  for  the  Emperor,  the  only  limitation  on  his  power  was  the  obligation  to 
use  it  lawfully.  In  1523  the  Wittenberg  theologians  gave  an  opinion, 
or  rather  a  series  of  opinions,  on  this  subject  in  which  they  set  forth  their 
doctrine  thus: 

i  Walch,  17:  956  seq. 

*  It  was  this  papal  citation  that  led  Luther  to  write  one  of  his  most  violent  tracts 
against  the  Papacy:  Wider  das  Papstthums,  so  zu  Rom  von  Teufel  gestiftet,  Witten- 
berg, 1545;  LDS,  26:  108-228;  Walch,  17:  1019  seq.  Kostlin  calls  this  Luther's 
"last  great  witness  against  the  Papacy."  The  quality  of  this  "witness"  may  be 
inferred  from  a  single  choice  extract:  "Therefore  he  [the  Pope]  should  be  seized, 
he  and  his  Cardinals,  and  all  the  scoundrelly  crew  of  his  Holiness,  and  their  tongues 
should  be  torn  from  their  throats  and  nailed  in  a  row  on  the  gallows  tree,  in  like 
manner  as  they  affix  their  seals  in  a  row  to  their  bulls,  though  even  this  would 
be  but  slight  punishment  for  all  their  blasphemy  and  idolatry.  Afterwards  let 
them  hold  a  council,  or  whatever  they  please,  on  the  gallows,  or  in  hell  with  all  the 
demons." 

3  Walch,  17:  1133  seq.;  C.  R.,  5:  577  seq. 

« Sleidan,  358,  359. 


THE  SCHMALKALD  WAR  367 

We  conclude  that  it  is  the  duty  of  every  prince  to  protect  Chris- 
jtians,  and  the  proper  external  worship  of  God,  against  all  unlawful 
violence,  just  as  in  civil  matters  it  is  the  duty  of  a  prince  to  protect 
a  pious  subject  against  unjust  violence.  Much  more  is  this  duty 
incumbent  on  princes,  since  the  Scriptures  often  enjoin  upon  princes 
the  protection  of  lawful  preachers  and  teachers ....  There  is  no 
difference  between  a  secret  murderer  and  the  Emperor,  when  the 
latter  proposes  unlawful  violence  beyond  his  jurisdiction,  and  espe- 
cially unlawful  violence  in  public  matters. 

Though  it  would  be  a  valid  inference  that  princes  might  and  should 
resist  the  Emperor  if  he  invaded  their  religious  rights,  or  those  of  their 
subjects,  Luther  and  his  colleagues  were  careful  not  to  draw  this  inference 
in  so  many  words.  It  was  not  until  1545  that  they  formally  approved 
the  Schmalkald  League  and  a  defensive  war  of  religion  in  case  the  Emperor 
attacked  the  Protestants.1 

On  September  18,  1544,  an  event  occurred  that  was  indirectly  decisive 
regarding  the  course  of  affairs  in  Germany.  Charles  then  succeeded  in 
concluding  a  comparatively  firm  and  lasting  treaty  with  his  dearest  foe, 
Francis  I,  known  as  the  Peace  of  Crespy.  A  year  later  he  made  a  truce 
with  the  Turks  that  freed  Europe  from  the  dangers  so  long  threatening 
from  that  quarter.  Several  times  in  previous  years  the  hostility  of  the 
Turks  had  saved  the  Protestant  party  when  in  imminent  peril,  but  no 
further  diversions  of  that  kind  were  now  possible.  More  than  once 
before  this,  Charles  had  seemed  to  be  free  to  devote  his  attention  exclu- 
sively to  German  affairs  and  employ  all  his  resources  in  behalf  of 
the  Roman  Church,  but  his  freedom  had  in  every  case  proved  to 
be  illusory.  Now  for  the  first  time  he  was  really  free,  and  the 
remaining  ten  years  of  his  reign  were  devoted  to  a  consistent  and 
determined  attempt  to  restore  the  imperial  authority  and  suppress  the 
Protestant  faith  in  Germany. 

Just  as  the  storm  was  to  break,  the  Protestant  cause  suffered  a  great 
loss.  Martin  Luther,  the  man  who  began  the  Reformation  and  had 
remained  the  soul  of  the  revolt  against  Rome,  died  after  a  few  hours' 
illness  in  the  town  of  Eisleben,  where  he  was  born,  February  18,  1546, 
in  his  sixty-third  year.  He  was  easily  the  greatest  man  of  his  age,  great 
alike  in  his  faults  and  in  his  virtues.  It  was  a  greatness  of  character,  of 
personality.  Luther  bestrode  Europe  like  a  colossus,  dwarfing  all  men 
of  his  time,  because  of  what  he  was,  while  Charles  V  played  a  great  part 
in  the  history  of  the  age  mainly  because  of  what  he  had  inherited.  We 
have  outgrown  Carlyle's  "great  man"  theory  of  history,  but  it  is  still 
mankind's  unconscious  tribute  to  the  greatness  of  Luther  that,  though  in 
reality  but  a  chip  upon  the  current  of  events,  he  so  stamped  his  personality 
,  65:  83-86. 


368  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

on  the  men  of  his  time  and  has  so  dominated  the  imagination  of  generations 
following,  most  men  still  think  and  speak  of  him  as  the  creator  of  the 
Reformation.  Luther  was  elemental,  genuine,  abundant  in  vitality, 
intensely  human  in  both  his  merits  and  his  failings.  Some  see  in  him 
only  a  bundle  of  contradictions;  certainly  he  was  not  a  man  of  unpardon- 
able virtues.  He  was  brave,  but  seldom  chivalrous,  too  much  the  man 
of  action  to  care  whether  he  were  consistent.  In  early  life  an  extreme 
ascetic,  after  he  left  the  monastery  he  took  special  pains  to  throw  off 
former  restraints  and  became  joyous  and  even  self-indulgent.  If  in  his 
later  years  he  had  been  called  "a  gluttonous  man  and  a  wine-bibber"  it 
would  hardly  have  been  a  slander.  The  strain  of  peasant  coarseness  was 
never  eradicated  from  his  nature  by  culture,  and  his  manners  left  much 
to  be  desired.  Nevertheless,  there  is  force  in  Heine's  celebrated  saying — 
"The  polish  of  Erasmus,  the  benignity  of  Melanchthon,  would  never 
have  brought  us  so  far  as  the  divine  brutality  of  brother  Martin."  Even 
so,  we  may  append  our  footnote  to  the  effect  that  the  brutality  is  far 
oftener  in  evidence  than  the  divinity. 

Democracy  means  a  free  man  in  a  free  society,  and  Luther  made  one 
of  the  greatest  contributions  of  all  time  to  this  end.  Yet  even  here  we 
cannot  forget  that  after  his  heroic  stand  at  Worms  he  soon  began  to  show 
a  fundamental  distrust  of  all  that  he  had  previously  taught,  and  spent 
the  best  years  of  his  life  in  a  vain  attempt  to  limit  the  development  of  his 
own  principles.  Twentieth-century  standards  must  not  be  used  to  meas- 
ure this  marvel  of  the  sixteenth.  After  all,  the  chief  fact  to  remember  is 
the  intensity  of  his  religious  experiences  and  his  marvelous  power  of 
communicating  them  to  others.  His  natural  and  unaffected  piety,  his 
unfaltering  trust  in  God,  his  joyous  courage  in  the  midst  of  manifold 
dangers,  his  typical  German  spirit,  gave  him  a  hold  on  the  affection  and 
imagination  of  the  German  nation  that  he  never  lost.  He  is  admired 
by  Catholics  who  deplore  the  Reformation,  and  can  see  in  it  only 

Millions  of  spirits  for  his  fault  amerced 

Of  Heaven,  and  from  eternal  splendors  flung 

For  his  revolt. 

As  with  every  man  of  genius  there  is  something  in  Luther  that  does  not 
yield  to  analysis — the  whole  is  greater  than  the  sum  of  all  its  parts. 
Not  a  great  scholar,  not  a  great  poet,  not  a  great  orator,  hardly  a  great 
man  of  letters,  he  was  a  great  man — he  was  the  great  man  of  the  German 
people. 

At  the  Diet  of  Regensburg  (1546)  a  request  by  the  Protestants  for  the 
renewal  of  the  Peace  of  Niirnberg  was  scornfully  rejected,  and  Charles 
began  gathering  an  army.  Sentence  of  outlawry  was  pronounced  upon 


THE  SCHMALKALD  WAR  369 

the  leaders  of  the  Schmalkald  League  July  20th,1  and  the  Protestants 
at  once  began  to  prepare  for  defense.  War  had  come  at  last.  Still, 
either  trusting  the  Emperor's  deceitful  professions  that  he  had  no  hostile 
intentions,  or  relying  too  greatly  on  their  military  strength,  the  Protestants 
neglected  the  one  obvious  precaution  that  would  have  secured  them  from 
invasion,  the  occupying  of  the  Alpine  passes  with  even  a  small  force. 
When  his  purpose  could  no  longer  be  concealed,  Charles  was  profuse 
in  protestations  that  he  waged  war  for  political  purposes,  not  religious. 
In  a  letter  addressed  to  the  cities  of  Strassburg,  Nurnberg  and  Ulm, 
June  16,  1546,  he  said  that  certain  disturbers  of  peace  and  justice  had 
for  a  long  time  availed  themselves  of  the  Christian  religion  as  a  mantle 
for  unlawful  attempts  to  subjugate  the  other  Estates  of  the  Empire.  Now 
they  proclaimed  that  they  intended  to  raise  the  sword  against  the  Emperor. 
He  had  accordingly  resolved  to  punish  these  disobedient  and  refractory 
subjects  and  reestablish  the  German  nation  hi  peace  and  unity.2  There 
was  much  truth  in  the  Emperor's  way  of  putting  the  case  against  the 
Protestants,  but  he  disclosed  his  real  purpose  in  a  letter  to  his  son,  August 
10th:  "My  aim  and  object  was  and  is  to  prosecute  this  war  for  the 
restoration  of  the  Catholic  religion.  I  nevertheless  caused  it  to  be 
announced  and  proclaimed,  because  this  course  seemed  advisable  at 
first,  that  my  motive  was  to  punish  my  refractory  subjects,  above  all 
those  of  Hesse  and  Saxony."3 

When  the  forces  took  the  field,  everything  looked  favorable  for  the 
Protestant  cause.  They  had  an  army  of  47,000  men,  considerably  out- 
numbering any  force  the  Emperor  was  able  to  arm  and  equip,  and  they 
had  some  advantage  of  position.  But  this  force  of  theirs  was  not  a  com- 
pact army;  it  was  composed  of  numerous  independent  detachments,  and 
there  was  no  concert  of  action,  rather  mutual  jealousies  and  dissensions 
that  paralyzed  effort.  The  Emperor  was  not  crushed  at  once,  as  good 
military  policy  dictated,  but  given  time  t6  collect  reinforcements.  The 
delay  not  only  increased  their  opponent's  strength  but  weakened  their 
own,  as  the  delay  in  giving  battle  and  deciding  the  issue  crippled  the 
financial  resources  of  the  allies. 

On  the  eve  of  the  real  campaign,  there  was  a  defection  from  the  Prot- 
estant forces  that  proved  fatal.  Duke  Moritz,  of  Saxony,  though  a 
Protestant,  had  not  joined  the  Schmalkald  League,  and  was  well  known  to 
be  ill-affected  toward  his  cousin,  Elector  John  Frederick.  Still  his  aid 

*  Walch,  17:  1470.  Cf.  Sleidan,  389,  and  Raynaldus,  1546,  No.  109.  At  the 
same  time  he  concluded  a  secret  treaty  with  the  Pope  for  the  suppression  of 
Protestantism.  Original  in  Raynaldus,  1546,  No.  94;  cf.  Sleidan,  381,  and  Richards' 
"Melanchthon,"  314,  315. 

1  Janssen,  6:  314. 

3  Maurenbrecher,  "Karl  V,"  Appendix,  p.  47.     Cf.  Armstrong,  "Charles  V," 


370  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

was  confidently  expected  by  the  League;  at  the  least  his  neutrality  was 
assumed.  He  had,  however,  concluded  a  secret  treaty  with  the  Emperor, 
by  which  he  secured  his  own  religious  liberty,  and  the  promise  of  other 
favors,  on  condition  of  supporting  Charles  against  the  League.  At  the 
critical  moment,  just  as  Charles  was  ready  to  march  into  Germany, 
Moritz  invaded  Electoral  Saxony.  The  Elector  hastened  to  the  defense 
of  his  domains,  which  he  easily  regained,  but  he  thereby  left  the  allied 
forces  too  weak  to  resist  the  Emperor's  advance,  and  was  himself  defeated 
at  Miihlberg  by  the  imperial  army  and  made  a  prisoner  of  war,  April 
24,  1547.  This  crushing  reverse  took  the  heart  out  of  the  other  princes, 
and  one  by  one  they  offered  apology  and  submission  to  the  Emperor. 
The  powerful  Schmalkald  League  was  annihilated  at  a  blow,  and  Charles 
V  was  undisputed  master  of  Germany. 


CHAPTER  IV 

THE   PEACE   OF  AUGSBURG 

CHARLES  V  was  victor  at  Miihlberg,  but  his  triumph  was  more 
seeming  than  real.  Germany  was  by  no  means  conquered;  its  military 
power  was  not  seriously  impaired,  while  the  Emperor,  in  spite  of  appear- 
ances, was  nearly  at  the  end  of  his  resources.  All  that  Germany  needed 
was  a  competent  leader,  but  this  was  just  what  she  lacked.  Henry  II, 
who  had  recently  succeeded  Francis  I,  had  inherited  his  father's  hatred 
of  Charles,  and  was  much  enraged  by  the  imperial  triumph.  He  sent  a 
contingent  of  landsknechts  and  cavalry  to  the  aid  of  the  Protestants 
and  promised  them  a  large  sum  of  money.  There  was  even  a  prospect 
that  France  would  declare  war  against  the  Emperor.  But  Germany, 
instead  of  resisting,  abjectly  surrendered;  the  princes  had  no  stomach  for 
further  resistance.  John  Frederick  assented  to  whatever  terms  the  Em- 
peror chose  to  impose,  giving  up  his  electoral  dignity  to  Moritz,  together 
with  most  of  his  territory,  Moritz  guaranteeing  50,000  florins  a  year  to 
the  former  Elector's  children.  He  even  accepted  the  ambiguous  demand 
that  he  should  remain  at  the  Emperor's  court  so  long  as  it  should  please 
his  Majesty,  which  hi  1550  Charles  interpreted  to  mean  captivity  for 
life. 

Had  the  "Magnanimous"  Philip  of  Hesse  been  anything  more  than  a 
whining  coward  in  this  emergency,  the  Protestant  forces  might  have  been 
rallied  and  the  imperial  army  been  driven  out  of  Germany.  As  it  was, 
his  one  thought  seems  to  have  been  how  be  might  make  the  best  possible 
terms  for  himself.  He  opened  negotiations  with  the  Emperor  through 
Moritz  and  the  Elector  of  Brandenburg.  Charles  sent  a  demand  that 
he  should  surrender  in  Gnade  und  Ungnade  (in  favor  and  disfavor,  i.e., 
unconditionally)  but  Philip  struck  out  the  words  und  Ungnade  with  his 
own  hand  and  refused  surrender  unless  this  concession  were  granted  him.1 
The  Emperor  insisted  on  retaining  the  words,  but  gave  the  mediators  his 
personal  pledge  that  this  should  not  lead  to  corporal  punishment  or 
perpetual  imprisonment.  That  this  pledge  was  given,  and  that  it  was 
insincere,  is  proved  by  a  letter  of  his  to  Ferdinand — "It  is  true  that  the 
two  electors  demanded  my  assurance  that  I  would  not  allow  Philip  to 
be  punished  corporally,  or  by  perpetual  imprisonment;  they  used  the 

1  The  treaty,  in  twenty-four  articles,  is  given  by  Mogen  in  Historia  Captivitatis 
magnanimi  Hessiae  Landgravii,  Leipzig,  1766,  pp.  382-396.  For  the  Gnad  und 
Ungnad  clause,  see  same,  p.  59  seq. 

371 


372  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

term  'perpetual/  and  they  also  promised  that  the  word  should  be  used 
in  the  document  presented  to  me.  I  agreed  to  this  demand,  but  I  never- 
theless think  it  advisable  to  retain  the  Landgrave  in  my  hands,  at  least 
for  a  time  longer,  and  to  make  a  prisoner  of  him  when  he  arrives;  and  the 
Electors  will  not  be  able  to  complain  on  that  score,  for  I  shall  be  doing 
nothing  contrary  to  the  promise  I  made  'not  to  subject  him  to  perpetual 
imprisonment. ' " l 

When  therefore  Philip  presented  himself  before  the  Emperor  at  Halle, 
June  19th,  to  sue  for  pardon,  the  Emperor  received  him  coldly,  refusing  to 
extend  to  him  the  hand  of  forgiveness.  It  is  said  that  when  he  rose  from 
his  knees,  Philip  had  a  smile  on  his  lips,  and  that  Charles  lifted  a  threaten- 
ing finger  and  said,  "Wait,  wait,  and  I  will  teach  you  how  to  laugh." 
The  prince  was  informed  that  he  would  be  detained  in  captivity,  and  on 
the  mediators  protesting  that  they  had  understood  this  would  not  be  the 
case,  and  that  they  had  so  informed  Philip  in  his  name,  Charles  had  but 
to  point  them  to  the  terms  of  the  surrender.  The  Emperor  was  indeed 
keeping  the  letter  of  his  agreement,  though  doubtless  violating  what  he 
had  made  the  mediators  believe  was  its  spirit.  The  princes  finally  ad- 
mitted that  the  Emperor  "was  entitled  to  retain  the  Landgrave  in  cap- 
tivity, but  that  his  imprisonment  must  not  be  perpetual." 

The  dominance  that  Charles  thus  obtained  in  Germany  was  not  less 
complete  because  so  little  deserved.  He  had  to  thank  the  weakness  of 
his  enemies  rather  than  his  own  prowess,  but  he  had  none  save  himself  to 
thank  for  his  failure  to  profit  by  his  great  opportunity.  All  through  life 
fortune  was  delivering  his  enemies  into  his  hands;  but  now,  as  after 
Pavia  and  the  sack  of  Rome,  he  could  gam  less  from  victory  than  a  really 
great  leader  like  William  of  Orange  could  wring  from  defeat.  Perhaps 
he  quickly  discovered  the  unconquered  spirit  of  Germany,  and  felt  that 

"who  overcomes 
By  force,  hath  overcome  but  half  his  foe." 

At  all  events,  Germany  was  surprised  to  find  the  Emperor  behaving  less 
like  a  conqueror  than  as  one  who  negotiates  with  an  adversary  on  equal 
terms.  It  is  said  that  after  the  surrender  of  Wittenberg  he  and  his  staff 
visited  the  tomb  of  Luther  in  the  castle  church,  and  the  Duke  of  Alba 
advised  him  to  have  the  arch-heretic's  bones  dug  up  and  burned;  to  which 
Charles  made  the  noble  reply,  "I  war  with  the  living,  not  with  the  dead. " 
This  would  be  very  gratifying,  if  one  could  but  assure  himself  that  it 
ever  happened,  and  that  it  represents  the  Emperor's  real  mind.  That 
his  policy  was  pacific  there  can  be  no  question.  Only  those  who  had  been 

1  Janssen,  VI:  371.  Sleidan's  account,  excellent  in  the  main,  seems  to  betray 
ignorance  of  the  more  vital  documents.  430  seq.;  cf.  Armstrong,  "Charles  V," 
2:  155,  156. 


THE  PEACE  OF  AUGSBURG  373 

in  actual  rebellion  were  punished,  and  only  the  leaders  at  that;  of  im- 
mediate severity  against  the  Protestants  as  such  there  was  no  sign.  And 
except  Moritz,1  none  of  his  supporters  received  rewards  at  the  expense 
of  others. 

There  is  one  hypothesis  on  which  this  course  of  Charles  may  be  ex- 
plained: he  was  again  using  Germany  as  a  pawn  on  the  great  chess- 
board of  European  politics,  where  his  game  had  assumed  a  new  phase 
during  the  war.  An  open  rupture  had  again  occurred  between  Emperor 
and  Pope.  After  many  delays,  the  long  promised  Council  had  actually 
met  at  Trent,  December  13,  1545.  In  1546  decrees  were  passed  concern- 
ing the  canonical  Scriptures,  original  sin  and  justification.  The  decree 
on  the  Scriptures  was  particularly  objectionable  to  the  Protestants,  in 
that  it  received  the  apocryphal  books  of  the  Jews  as  part  of  the  canon, 
demanded  that  tradition  should  be  received  as  of  equal  weight  with  Scrip- 
ture, and  that  the  Vulgate  should  be  read  in  the  churches  and  esteemed 
authentic  and  canonical  equally  with  the  original  Greek  and  Hebrew. 
The  decree  on  justification  made  that  doctrine  include  sanctification 
and  inextricably  confused  the  two;  asserted  the  instrumental  cause  of 
justification  to  be,  not  faith,  but  baptism,  the  sacrament  of  faith;  and 
anathematized  all  who  "say  that  by  faith  alone  the  sinner  is  justified," 
or  that  "  justifying  faith  is  nothing  else  but  confidence  in  the  divine  mercy 
which  remits  sins  for  Christ's  sake."  In  March,  1547,  the  general  doc- 
trine of  the  sacraments  was  defined,  together  with  the  special  doctrines 
of  baptism  and  confirmation.  To  these  the  Lutherans  took  less  excep- 
tion. 

Charles  protested  against  these  acts  of  the  council,  first,  on  the  ground 
that  the  body  was  too  exclusively  Italian  for  its  decisions  to  be  ecumenical 
and  binding;  and  again,  that  the  decree  on  justification  was  not  in  accord 
with  the  agreement  at  Regensburg,  to  which  papal  legates  had  assented. 
While  this  dispute  was  pending,  several  members  of  the  council  sickened, 
and  under  pretext  that  a  contagious  disease  was  prevalent  at  Trent  the 
Pope  adjourned  the  council  on  March  14th  to  Bologna.  Angry  communi- 
cations now  passed  between  the  Emperor  and  the  Pope.  Charles  com- 
manded the  imperialist  bishops  to  remain  at  Trent  and  was  obeyed;  he 
insisted  that  the  Pope  should  summon  the  council  to  reassemble  at 
Trent  and  was  refused.  The  Pope  on  his  part  insisted  that  the  recalci- 
trant bishops  must  come  to  Bologna  as  a  condition  precedent  to  further 
action,  and  Charles  would  not  trust  him  so  far.2  We  may  conclude  with 
great  probability  that  the  Pope  was  as  much  alarmed  as  the  Protestants 
by  the  predominance  of  the  Emperor,  and  that  this  was  the  real  cause 

1  The  Duke  was  invested  with  the  promised  Electoral  dignity,  with  elaborate 
ceremonies  and  a  great  military  display.     Sleidan,  457. 

2  Documents  in  Raynaldus,  1547,  No.  88,  and  1548,  nos.  6  and  19. 


374  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

of  the  removal  of  the  council  to  Bologna,  at  which  greater  distance  it 
would  be  less  exposed  to  the  danger  of  imperial  interference  and  more 
under  papal  control. 

It  was  under  such  circumstances  that  Charles  summoned  the  Diet 
which  met  at  Augsburg  September  1,  1547.  The  quarrel  with  the  Pope 
had  greatly  moderated  the  zeal  of  the  Emperor  against  the  Protestants; 
he  was  now  in  no  mood  to  restore  Catholicism  with  the  strong  hand  and 
the  outstretched  arm.  A  few  things  he  did  insist  on,  more  because  he 
was  personally  concerned  about  them  than  for  any  other  reason.  He 
deposed  Archbishop  Hermann,  of  Cologne,  and  saw  him  replaced  with 
a  good  Catholic — this  was  necessary  to  maintain  the  Catholic  majority 
in  the  Electoral  College.  He  put  Julius  von  Pflug  into  his  See  of  Naum- 
berg,  which  the  Lutherans  had  occupied,  because  his  authority  had  been 
defied  in  that  case.  Beyond  such  things  he  did  not  go;  he  was  deeply 
displeased  with  Paul  III  and  the  council,  because,  instead  of  beginning 
a  reformation  of  the  Church,  they  had  devoted  themselves  chiefly  to 
condemning  the  doctrines  of  the  Protestants.  By  this  course  they  had 
made  his  self-imposed  task  of  pacifying  Germany  the  more  difficult. 
'Charles  was  now  returning  to  his  old  delusion,  from  which  he  had  been 
for  a  time  freed,  that  a  reunion  of  Protestants  and  Catholics  in  a  consoli- 
dated Germany  was  still  possible. 

As  a  result  of  such  cogitations,  the  tone  of  the  Emperor  at  the  Diet 
was  unexpectedly  moderate.  It  was,  some  of  them  whispered,  as  if  there 
had  been  no  Schmalkald  war.  Except  that  the  two  chief  Protestant 
princes  were  in  confinement  and  disgrace,  affairs  were  really  much  as 
they  had  been  before.  The  speech  from  the  throne  declared  that  settle- 
ment of  the  religious  difficulties  was  the  first  and  most  important  business 
before  the  Diet.  Accordingly,  it  was  attacked  energetically.  Bishop 
Julius  von  Pflug  and  Michael  Helding,  suffragan  bishop  of  Mainz,  repre- 
senting the  Catholics,  and  John  Agricola,  court  preacher  of  electoral 
Brandenburg,  were  appointed  to  draw  up  a  workable  compromise.  The 
result  of  their  labors  differed  in  no  material  way  from  the  Regensburg 
agreement  which  had  come  to  nothing;  and  this  new  draft  became  known 
as  the  Augsburg  Interim.  After  its  preparation,  Joachim  II  of  Branden- 
burg, was  persuaded  to  introduce  it  in  the  Diet  and  become  its  sponsor. 
It  is  said  that  this  prince  had  completely  exhausted  his  money  in  carousing 
and  gambling,  and  was  at  his  wit's  end  (no  long  distance)  to  provide  for 
his  expenses;  so  that  the  offer  by  a  Catholic  prelate  of  a  timely  loan  was 
the  inducement  that  led  him  thus  practically  to  abjure  his  Protestantism. 
Be  this  as  it  may,  his  complaisance  and  his  subsequent  attempts  to  per- 
suade the  Brandenburg  preachers  to  accept  the  Interim,  won  from  his 
appreciative  subjects  the  name  of  "Fat  Old  Interim." 


THE  PEACE  OF  AUGSBURG  375 

The  Interim 1  is  a  long  document  in  twenty-six  chapters,  which  may  be 
compendiously  described  as  an  attempt  to  combine  Protestant  doctrine 
and  Catholic  practice.  Articles  iv,  v  and  vi  on  justification,  while  far 
from  fully  satisfying  Protestants,  were  ambiguous  enough  to  permit  them 
to  continue  preaching  their  doctrine,  while  they  came  far  short  of  the 
uncompromising  rejection  of  Protestant  doctrine  found  in  the  canons 
of  Trent.  Article  vii  on  "  Love  and  good  works  "  was  equally  ambiguous. 
On  the  other  hand,  articles  xiv-xxvi  not  only  gave  the  Catholic  doctrine 
of  Church  and  Sacraments  entire  and  without  modification,  but  insisted 
as  well  on  all  the  Catholic  usages,  festivals  and  fasts.  Only  two  points 
of  discipline  were  conceded  to  the  Protestants:  the  marriage  of  priests 
and  communion  in  both  kinds.  The  articles  also  recognized  the  authority 
of  the  bishops,  and  gave  a  qualified  recognition  of  the  Pope's  jurisdiction. 
It  was,  on  the  whole,  much  such  a  compromise  as  Melanchthon  had  favored 
more  than  once  before,  and  notably  in  his  letter  to  Cardinal  Campeggio 
at  the  Diet  of  Augsburg,  in  1530.  As  this  new  ecclesiastical  constitution 
was  avowedly  only  temporary  and  provisional  in  character,  until  the 
council  then  in  session  should  have  given  a  final  decision  concerning  all 
disputed  questions  in  religion,  there  was  less  ground  for  objection  than 
if  it  had  been  put  forth  as  a  final  settlement.  It  was  passed  by  the  Diet 
and  proclaimed  by  the  Emperor  as  the  law  of  the  Empire,  May  15,  1548. 

Charles  soon  found  that  his  role  of  peacemaker  was  a  thankless  task. 
Though  the  Archbishop  of  Mainz  publicly  thanked  him,  in  the  name  of 
all  the  estates,  this  did  not  prevent  his  private  disapproval  of  the  whole 
measure.  He  afterwards  withdrew  his  public  words,  and  with  his  fellow 
prelates  of  Cologne  and  Trier  protested  against  the  Interim,  especially 
the  concession  to  the  Protestants  of  the  lay  chalice  and  clerical  marriage. 
The  Protestants  were  even  more  dissatisfied.  Duke  Moritz  was  so  dis- 
pleased that  he  withdrew  from  the  Diet.  John  Frederick  protested  from 
his  prison.  The  Margrave  of  Brandenburg  flatly  refused  to  accept  it  or 
to  have  it  executed  in  his  dominions.  But  though  thus  buffeted  on  both 
sides — the  Catholics  regarding  the  Interim  as  an  ill-advised  compromise, 
and  the  Protestants  declaring  it  to  be  the  work  of  the  devil — Charles 
continued  to  enforce  his  plan,  to  the  best  of  his  power,  but  was  able  to 
do  so  only  wherever  he  and  his  troops  were  actually  present;  elsewhere 
a  stubborn  passive  resistance  was  opposed,  that  was  measurably  success- 
ful. The  strongest  opposition  came  from  the  towns,  which  were  once 
more  the  saviors  of  the  Reformation.  In  South  Germany  their  opposi- 
tion was  ruthlessly  overborne.  The  preachers  of  Ulm,  who  advised  the 

1  A  very  full  abstract  in  German,  with  many  verbatim  quotations,  is  given  in 
Gieseler,  4:  194,  195.  Latin  text  in  Kidd,  359-362.  Summary  in  English  in 
Sleidan,  458,  459,  and  complete  text  in  Calvin's  "Tracts,"  3:  190-239  (Calvin 
Translation  Society,  Edinburgh,  1861). 


376  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

citizens  to  resist,  were  thrown  into  prison;  and  Constance  for  a  time  lost 
its  freedom.  Northern  Germany  fared  better;  Magdeburg  was  the  center 
of  disaffection  and  resistance.  The  press  teemed  with  squibs  and  satires, 
in  which  Charles  and  his  edict  were  held  up  to  ridicule,  and  no  prohibitions 
or  penalties  availed  to  disarm  the  people  of  this  terrible  weapon.  It  is 
little  exaggeration  to  say  that  the  Interim  was  eventually  laughed  out 
of  existence.1 

The  Pope,  on  his  part,  bitterly  resented  this  imperial  and  secular 
interference  (as  he  regarded  it)  with  his  own  prerogatives,2  but  he  was 
not  ready  for  a  total  break  with  the  arbiter  of  Europe,  and  reluctantly 
acceded  to  the  demand  of  Charles  that  dispensations  should  be  granted 
the  Protestants  hi  the  two  breaches  of  Catholic  discipline  provided  by 
the  Interim.  He  sent  delegates  to  whom  he  secretly  gave  full  powers, 
but  with  urgent  instructions  to  conceal  these  powers  and  delay  action 
as  long  as  possible.3 

Duke  Moritz,  on  his  return  home  from  the  Diet,  called  together  a  num- 
ber of  his  theologians,  of  whom  Melanchthon  was  the  best  known,  and 
took  counsel  with  them.  He  was  very  averse  to  accepting  and  executing 
the  Augsburg  Interim  in  his  domains,  but  was  not  prepared  for  open  dis- 
obedience to  Emperor  and  Diet.  The  only  possible  alternative  was  to 
propose  some  modifications  in  the  document,  which  should  make  it  more 
acceptable  to  the  Protestants,  yet  not  obnoxious  to  the  Emperor.  It  was 
by  no  means  an  easy  task,  and  his  success  was  only  partial.  A  former 
composition  of  Melanchthon's  on  justification,  stating  the  doctrine  in  a 
much  more  clear  and  evangelical  form  than  was  done  in  the  Interim,  was 
taken  as  the  basis;  otherwise  the  Augsburg  document  was  closely  followed 
— so  closely,  in  fact,  as  to  concede  confirmation,  episcopal  ordination 
and  extreme  unction  as  sacraments;  fasts  (as  things  commanded  by  the 
Emperor  and  not  contrary  to  the  gospel),  processions,  use  of  images  in 
the  churches,  and  practically  the  full  celebration  of  the  mass.  On 
December  21,  1548  this  was  proclaimed  and  was  known  as  the  Leipzig 
Interim.4 

There  is  no  question  that  both  Melanchthon  and  Moritz  were  actuated 
by  their  fears  more  than  by  their  judgment  in  the  preparation  of  this 
document.  Neither  of  them  had  the  spirit  of  martyrs.  Melanchthon 
justified  himself  by  the  prospect  that  refusal  would  mean  the  deprivation 

*  Janssen,  6:  418.  On  the  severe  treatment  of  Ulm  and  other  cities,  see  Sleidan, 
472  seq.,  517,  etc. 

» The  letter  of  admonition  written  by  Paul  III  to  Charles  V  is  to  be  found  in 
an  English  version,  together  with  elaborate  comments  by  Calvin,  in  Calvin's 
"Tracts,"  1:  212  seq. 

3  Raynaldus,  1548,  No.  72. 

«  CR,  7:  259  seq.  The  first  draft  is  given  in  pp.  48-62.  Eng.  tr.  Jacobs, 
"Concord,"  2:  260  seq. 


THE  PEACE  OF  AUGSBURG  377 

of  the  clergy  on  a  large  scale,1  and  the  plunder  of  the  churches;  and  by 
the  further  plea  that,  as  liberty  to  preach  the  gospel  would  be  saved, 
ceremonies  and  the  like  were  adiaphora  or  matters  of  indifference,  that 
might  be  observed  without  injury  to  the  divine  Scripture.  But  he  in- 
cluded many  things  under  adiaphora  that  were  vitally  connected  with 
sound  evangelical  theology,  and  he  even  stated  some  of  the  evangelical 
doctrines  in  terms  so  ambiguous,  that  he  seemed  to  all  but  his  intimate 
friends  to  have  become  a  traitor  to  the  Reformation.  And  accordingly, 
there  broke  out  a  bitter  combat,  known  as  the  adiaphoristic  controversy, 
the  first  of  a  series  of  dissensions  arising  from  Melanchthon's  teachings, 
which  divided  the  Lutherans  into  bitterly  hostile  groups. 

There  was  another  and  deeper  cause  for  this  division  among  the  Luther- 
ans than  mere  dissatisfaction  with  Melanchthon's  teachings.  He  had 
succeeded,  by  force  of  circumstances,  to  a  leadership  for  which  he 
was  in  no  way  fitted.  So  long  as  Luther  survived,  his  imperious  will  and 
vitriolic  pen  had  kept  everybody  else  in  docile  subjection.  After  his 
death  a  number  of  ambitious  theologians,  whose  desire  far  outran  per- 
formance, were  ready  to  challenge  the  authority  of  Melanchthon  and 
make  their  bids  for  leadership.  It  is  not  to  be  denied  that  his  party  had 
a  real  grievance  against  their  new  leader,  and  a  few  years  later  he  con- 
fessed that  he  had  gone  too  far  in  granting  concessions;  yet  it  was  no 
deliberate  treachery  of  which  he  had  been  guilty,  but  inherent  weakness 
of  character.  He  had  now  yielded,  in  the  chief  crisis  of  his  life,  to  that 
inveterate  tendency  to  compromise,  to  the  verge  of  giving  up  all  that  was 
worth  retaining,  from  which  Luther's  firmness  had  saved  him  and  the 
Protestant  cause  at  Augsburg  in  1530.  But  there  was  no  stout-hearted 
Luther  now  at  Melanchthon's  side. 

The  Interim  was  not  the  only  important  measure  of  Charles  at  the 
Augsburg  Diet.  He  also  caused  a  scheme  of  reform  to  be  drawn  up  and 
submitted  to  the  German  bishops,  which  provided  for  the  removal  of 
the  abuses  so  bitterly  mentioned  hi  the  Centum  Gravamina  and  other 
documents  of  the  time.  He  hoped  by  this  means  further  to  conciliate 
the  Protestants  on  the  one  hand,  and  to  bring  such  pressure  to  bear  on 
the  council  as  should  insure  efficient  reform  by  that  body.  As  matter  of 
fact,  many  of  the  things  that  he  demanded  were  done  in  the  later  canons 
of  Trent,  after  Charles  had  passed  off  the  European  stage.  The  Emperor 
also  attempted  reforms  in  the  constitution  of  the  Empire,  such  as  would 
strengthen  his  authority.  The  chief  result  was  the  establishment  of  an 

1  Melanchthon  states  as  the  result  of  the  Augsburg  Interim  that  "upwards  of 
four  hundred  pastors  in  Swabia  and  the  circles  of  the  Rhine  are  driven  from  their 
stations.  There  is  but  a  single  minister  at  this  moment  at  Tubingen  who  con- 
forms to  the  book  published  at  Augsburg;  it  has  had  the  effect  of  driving  away 
all  the  preachers  and  pastors."  CR,  7:  299,  301. 


378  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

imperial  military  treasury  and  a  redistribution  of  taxation.  The  main 
burden  of  the  new  subsidies,  notwithstanding  their  protests,  fell  on  the 
cities.  By  this  policy  the  Emperor  cleverly  contrived  to  give  the  towna 
both  a  political  and  a  religious  grievance,  and  provoked  them  to  a  resist- 
ance that  in  the  end  could  only  be  fatal  to  his  ascendancy  in  Germany. 
It  was  clearly  his  policy  to  gain  the  support  of  the  towns  against  the  princes 
if  he  would  increase  the  imperial  power  at  the  expense  of  the  oligarchy. 

From  his  deadlock  with  the  Pope,  Charles  was  released  by  the  death  of 
Paul  III,  November  10,  1549.  Julius  III,  who  succeeded,  had  as 
cardinal  been  an  adroit  and  consistent  anti-imperialist;  but  as  Pope  he 
saw  the  importance  of  coming  to  terms  with  the  Emperor.  He  turned 
from  Henry  II  and  sought  close  relations  with  Charles,  inviting  the  Em- 
peror to  preside  in  person  at  the  reopening  of  the  council,  which  he  sum- 
moned to  meet  again  at  Trent,  May  1,  1551.  This  reconciliation  seemed 
to  bode  ill  for  the  Protestants  and  to  foreshadow  their  complete  submis- 
sion. Elector  Joachim,  in  order  to  secure  confirmation  of  his  son  as 
Archbishop  of  Magdeburg  (he  was  already  bishop  of  Hildesheim)  offered  to 
submit  to  the  council.  It  was  arranged  that  the  Protestant  states  should 
send  representatives  to  Trent,  and  though  Melanchthon  drew  up  another 
confession,  more  Protestant  than  the  Leipzig  Interim,1  little  was  hoped 
as  a  result  of  their  appeal.  It  was  the  darkest  hour  of  Protestantism. 

Though  a  show  had  been  made,  as  we  have  seen,  of  enforcing  the  Augs- 
burg Interim,  it  more  and  more  became  a  dead  letter.  It  accomplished 
one  thing,  however,  with  a  thoroughness  that  perhaps  nobody  had  fore- 
seen: the  complete  and  final  alienation  of  Germany  from  Charles  V.  He 
had  owed  his  election  to  the  patriotic  preference  of  Germans  for  a  German 
to  be  their  ruler,  rather  than  a  Frenchman  or  an  Englishman.  But 
Charles  was  not  a  German;  he  was  a  Spaniard  in  every  drop  of  his  blood; 
he  never  understood  Germany  in  the  least,  and  he  now  lost  the  last 
remnants  of  German  respect  and  esteem.  Henceforth  he  and  Germany 
could  be  nothing  but  bitter  foes.  He  and  his  Spanish  garrisons  were 
alike  hated;  his  prestige  in  Europe  began  to  decline;  the  essential  weak- 
ness of  his  position  was  better  appreciated;  until  finally  the  temptation 
to  attack  him  grew  too  strong  to  be  resisted  by  one  restless  and  ambitious 
man,  at  least. 

Duke  Moritz  had  profited  all  that  he  could  by  his  first  treachery;  he 
had  betrayed  his  fellow-Protestants  to  the  Emperor  for  a  price,  by  no 

1  May,  1551,  the  Confessio  Saxonica,  CR,  27:  327  seq.  The  Latin  text  is  followed 
by  Major's  translation  into  German,  p.  370  seq.  This  is  called  "a  repetition  and 
exposition  of  the  Augsburg  Confession,"  but  it  is  rather  an  adaptation  of  the  con- 
fession of  Augsburg  to  the  changed  circumstances.  It  was  signed,  not  by  the 
princes,  but  by  the  theologians:  Bugenhagen,  Pfeffinger,  Camerarius,  Major,  Eber, 
Melanchthon,  and  the  Superintendents  of  Electoral  Saxony.  See  letter  of  Me- 
lanchthon to  Prince  George,  of  Anhalt,  July  11,  1551,  in  CR,  7:  806. 


THE  PEACE  OF  AUGSBURG  379* 

means  high  enough  to  satisfy  him;  he  was  now  ready  for  a  second  treachery 
by  which  the  Emperor  should  be  betrayed  to  his  fellow-Protestants. 
This  is  the  surface  reading  of  the  facts,  and  it  is  yet  uncertain  whether 
they  have  any  other  significance  than  lies  on  the  surface.  It  may  be 
conceded  that  the  character  of  Moritz  is  a  puzzle  not  solved,  but  those 
who  maintain  that  he  had  all  along  a  deep  design  of  making  the  Protest- 
ant cause  triumphant  have  not  clearly  made  out  their  case.1  Disap- 
pointment that  his  reward  and  honor  had  not  been  greater  may  first  have 
led  him  to  think  of  deserting  Charles;  ambition  to  become  the  arbiter 
of  Germany  was  probably  a  motive  not  less  strong;  he  no  doubt  thought 
he  saw  his  way  clear  to  great  emoluments  and  honors  through  his  new 
policy.  We  may  even  grant  some  force  to  the  excuse  for  his  conduct 
that  he  himself  gave:  a  desire  to  right  the  wrongs  of  his  father-in-law, 
Landgrave  Philip,  who  had  been  kept  a  close  prisoner  till  now  and  some 
of  the  time  had  been  treated  with  positive  brutality. 

Moritz  concluded  a  secret  alliance  with  Henry  II,  at  the  same  time  he 
was  assuring  the  Emperor  of  his  eternal  fidelity,  and  simultaneously 
the  allies  took  the  field  in  March,  1552.2  Charles  had  been  repeatedly 
warned  of  the  defection  of  Moritz,  but  would  not  believe  it.  His  incre- 
dulity may  have  been  in  part  affected — he  felt  that  he  could  do  nothing 
to  punish  the  treason  if  Moritz  were  in  truth  a  traitor,  and  to  show  sus- 
picion would  only  precipitate  the  result.  The  real  adversary  of  Charles 
at  this  time  was  poverty,  and  this  was  an  invincible  foe.  The  Emperor's 
power  was  a  mere  shell,  an  imposing  falsehood.  By  his  wars  and  ex- 
travagances he  had  completely  exhausted  both  his  resources  and  his  credit. 
He  had  no  money  to  pay  his  troops  and  they  were  tired  of  being  paid 
with  promises;  they  left  his  standard  for  their  homes,  or  sought  other 
service  that  held  out  better  prospect  of  pay.  Their  hopes  of  beauty  and 
booty  as  the  result  of  a  conquest  of  Germany  had  been  disappointed — 
no  rich  towns  had  been  given  over  to  them  to  storm  and  sack. 

When  Moritz  moved  against  Charles,  therefore,  there  was  no  opposi- 
tion. The  Emperor  was  lying  sick  and  discouraged  at  Innsbruck  and 
narrowly  escaped  capture.  One  story  represents  him  as  carried  away 
in  a  litter;  another  as  hastily  mounting  a  horse  and  riding  away  down  the 
Brenner  Pass,  without  books  or  papers,  only  a  few  minutes  before  the 
advance  guard  of  Moritz  entered  his  camp.3  In  any  event,  the  greatest 

1  Langenn  makes  out  the  best  case  he  can  for  Moritz,  which  is  not  saying  much, 
and  lays  great  stress  on  the  Emperor's  treatment  of  the  Landgrave  of  Hesse.  Moritzt 
Herzog  und  Churfurst  zu  Sachsen,     2  yols.     Leipzig,  1841,  1:  306-311,  503-527. 

2  Sleidan,  549;  on  Moritz's  intercession  with  the  Emperor  for  the  Landgrave, 
and  his  decision  for  war  when  he  received  only  vague  and  procrastinating  re- 
plies; see  same,  531-534. 

3  It  may  be  shrewdly  suspected  that  Moritz  advanced  slowly,  and  was  not  anx- 
ious to  capture  the  Emperor.     When  informed  that  Charles  had  escaped,  he  ia 
said  to  have  remarked r  "I  have  no  cage  for  such  a  bird."    Langenn,  1:  529. 


380  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

monarch  of  Europe  fled  out  of  Germany  like  a  whipped  dog,  and  never 
again  attempted  to  return.  His  ambitious  plans  had  totally  miscarried. 
Germany  was  once  more  free  and  Protestantism  was  saved.  In  the  long 
contest  between  monarchy  and  oligarchy,  oligarchy  had  won  out  with  a 
lasting  victory. 

For  it  speedily  became  evident  that  this  was  an  irreparable  disaster 
to  Charles.  The  Turks  seized  this  opportunity  to  begin  a  new  invasion, 
and  the  Emperor,  pressed  on  every  side,  was  compelled  to  make  the  best 
terms  possible  with  the  Protestant  Estates.  By  the  Peace  of  Passau, 
August  2,  1552,  he  agreed  to  release  his  captive  princes,  Philip  and  John 
Frederick,  and  that  a  settlement  of  the  religious  and  political  affairs  of 
Germany  should  be  made  by  the  Diet  of  the  Empire.  This  was  equiva- 
lent, in  the  circumstances,  to  a  relinquishment  of  his  attempt  to  increase 
the  imperial  power,  and  his  final  acceptance  of  the  constitution  of  the 
Empire  as  it  stood.  It  was  not  until  1555  that  the  Diet  was  able  to 
meet  and  perform  the  duty  thus  imposed  upon  it.  After  long  delibera- 
tion, a  recess  was  passed,  called  a  "perpetual  treaty  of  peace,"  which  has 
been  known  since  that  time  as  the  Peace  of  Augsburg.  Charles  could 
not  bring  himself  to  be  present  at  these  negotiations  and  submit  to  the 
personal  humiliation  of  seeing  all  that  he  had  struggled  to  accomplish 
during  his  reign  formally  annihilated;  he  therefore  made  his  brother 
Ferdinand  his  deputy  with  full  powers,  and  the  latter  gave  the  imperial 
assent  to  the  recess.  That  the  Estates  thus  amicably  settled  their  long- 
standing differences  for  themselves,  with  absolutely  no  thought  of  the 
wishes  of  Charles  or  respect  for  his  authority,  of  itself  testifies  to  the  fact 
that  the  Emperor  must  henceforth  be  regarded  as  without  power  or  even 
influence  in  the  so-called  Empire.  The  Diet  is  henceforth  the  center  of 
unity  and  authority,  and  the  princes  control  the  Diet.  It  is  a  pleasure 
to  add  that  Duke  Moritz  had  not  lived  to  see  this  day  of  triumph  or  to 
reap  the  fruits  of  his  second  treachery.  On  July  9,  1553,  he  fell  in  battle, 
in  a  war  that  he  had  begun  with  the  Margrave  Albert,  of  Brandenburg, 
a  former  boon-companion  with  whom  he  had  fallen  out. 

The  Peace1  was  declared  in  its  preamble  to  have  as  its  object  "to  estab- 
lish between  the  Estates  of  the  Holy  Empire  a  general,  continuous  and 
enduring  peace  in  regard  to  the  contending  religions, "  and  several  times  in 
the  various  articles  the  peace  so  established  is  described  as  "perpetual" 
and  "eternal."  It  really  did  endure  for  a  considerable  time,  since  for 
sixty-three  years  there  was  no  further  open  warfare  between  Protestant 
and  Catholic.  Then  the  strife  burst  forth  more  fiercely  than  ever, 
in  the  struggle  known  to  history  as  the  Thirty  Years'  War.  And  the 

1  For  the  full  text  of  the  Peace,  see  Appendix  VII.  The  chief  articles  are  given 
in  Latin  in  Gieseler,  4:  207,  and  in  English  by  Sleidan,  626. 


THE  PEACE  OF  AUGSBURG  381 

reason  for  this  renewal  of  strife  then  was  that  the  Peace  of  Augsburg 
left  unsettled  some  of  the  principal  questions  at  issue,  to  be  continual 
sources  of  misunderstanding  and  bickering,  until  mutual  exasperation 
should  produce  another  armed  conflict. 

The  Peace  did,  however,  provide  for  a  sort  of  toleration  of  those  who 
professed  the  faith  of  the  Augsburg  Confession — that  is,  it  permitted 
each  Estate  to  decide  what  should  be  its  religion,  and  established  as  the 
law  of  the  Empire  the  principle  first  encouraged  by  the  Diet  of  Speyer, 
in  1526,  cujus  regio,  ejus  religio.  There  was  thus  made  legal  a  territorial 
toleration  of  Lutheran  by  Catholic  and  Catholic  by  Lutheran — no  more. 
Zwinglians  and  Calvinists,  though  becoming  numerous,  were  granted  no 
legal  standing.  Nor  was  there  toleration  offered  within  any  State  of  such 
as  differed  from  the  religion  established  by  law,  whether  of  Protestants 
dissenting  from  the  Catholic  faith  or  Catholics  dissenting  from  the  Prot- 
estant faith.  Each  State  was  pledged  by  article  iii  to  permit  dissenting 
subjects  to  sell  their  lands  and  goods  and  remove  to  another  State  where 
their  own  religion  was  practiced,  and  this  without  hinderance  or  molesta- 
tion. In  the  Peace  itself  there  was  no  satisfactory  guarantee  that  Catholic 
rulers  would  not  persecute  their  Protestant  subjects,  but  Archduke 
Ferdinand,  as  deputy  of  the  Emperor,  issued  a  supplementary  declara- 
tion in  his  own  name,  giving  the  desired  pledge.  This  was  not,  even  at 
the  tune,  regarded  as  having  the  same  legal  force  as  the  recess  of  the 
Diet,  and  the  Catholic  States  afterwards  refused  to  hold  themselves  bound 
by  it. 

This  "territorial"  feature  of  the  Peace  secured  the  princely  oligarchy 
in  all  their  former  powers  and  assumed  privileges,  including  the  exercise 
of  episcopal  jurisdiction,  and  so  far  seemed  favorable  to  Protestantism. 
But  it  proved  in  the  end  a  Trojan  horse,  and  came  near  being  the  undoing 
of  the  Protestants.  Since  the  government  became  thenceforth  supreme 
in  the  realm  of  religion,  the  old  Church  had  only  to  recapture  the  govern- 
ment in  the  Protestant  states.  This  became  the  great  objective  of  the 
Jesuits,  who  managed  to  insinuate  themselves  as  tutors  or  instructors 
into  many  of  the  princely  families,  and  to  induce  others  to  send  their  sons 
to  the  Jesuit  schools  for  training.  As  a  result  of  such  tactics,  in  the  course 
of  a  few  generations  a  number  of  the  ruling  families  of  Germany  were  won 
back  to  Catholicism.  Even  Saxony,  in  the  end,  succumbed,  its  Duke 
being  unable  to  resist  the  glittering  bribe  of  the  crown  of  Poland,  and 
abjuring  his  Protestantism  in  order  to  gain  it.  But  he  was  unable  to 
reverse  the  religion  of  his  duchy  (since  become  a  kingdom),  and  to  this 
day  an  overwhelming  majority  of  the  people  have  remained  faithful 
to  the  Protestant  doctrine  of  their  fathers  while  the  reigning  house  of 
Saxony  is  Catholic. 


382  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

One  matter  about  which  there  was  long  and  fierce  difference  of  opinion 
in  the  Diet  was  the  restitution  of  the  confiscated  property  of  the  Church. 
This  was  the  one  thing  that  the  Protestants  were  determined  never  to 
yield;  they  would  have  fought  a  new  war  first.  The  utmost  in  the  way 
of  compromise  to  which  they  would  consent  was  to  make  the  year  1552 
and  the  treaty  of  Passau  the  norm,  and  cause  all  things  to  be  restored  to 
their  condition  at  that  tune.  Property  expropriated  since  then  was  to 
be  restored;  all  else  was  to  be  retained;  and  to  this  the  Catholics  finally 
gave  a  most  reluctant  consent.  The  courts  were  forbidden  to  entertain 
any  process  contrary  to  this  agreement.  This  of  course  satisfied  neither 
party,  and  each  accused  the  other  in  subsequent  years  of  violating  the 
agreement.  There  was  but  too  much  ground  for  such  accusations.  If 
we  may  judge  both  parties  by  their  later  acts,  neither  had  any  serious 
purpose  of  abiding  by  the  terms  of  the  treaty;  but  each  fully  intended  to 
take  whatever  advantage  came  its  way,  in  years  to  come  as  they  had  in 
years  past. 

But  perhaps  the  chief  bone  of  contention  was  the  spiritual  Estates, 
those  Sees  that  were  free  cities  or  principalities  of  the  Empire,  like  Mainz, 
Cologne,  Magdeburg.  Article  vi  provided  that  when  such  a  prelate 
should  abandon  his  Catholic  faith  he  should  resign  his  See,  and  the  chapter 
should  at  once  elect  another  of  the  old  religion.  The  Protestants  opposed 
the  article  vigorously,  and  were  with  great  difficulty  persuaded  by  Ferdi- 
nand to  give  it  their  assent.  Their  subsequent  conduct  clearly  showed, 
as  the  Catholics  charged,  that  they  did  not  assent  in  good  faith,  but  with 
a  mental  reservation  which  permitted  them  thereafter  to  seize  every 
opportunity  for  secularizing  such  Sees  and  adding  them  to  the  Protestant 
party.  In  this  way  the  archbishoprics  of  Magdeburg  and  Bremen,  and 
twelve  bishoprics,  were  secularized  one  by  one;  and  an  attempt  was 
made  in  1583  to  make  the  archbishopric  of  Cologne  Lutheran,  the  in- 
cumbent having  turned  Protestant.  The  attempt  failed,  and  a  member 
of  the  Bavarian  ducal  family  was  installed  in  his  place,  but  the  Catholics 
were  naturally  both  alarmed  and  enraged  at  this  open  violation  of  the 
Peace  by  the  Protestants.  Of  course,  the  Catholic  party  was  guilty 
of  quite  as  indefensible  breaches  of  the  Peace,  though  of  a  somewhat  differ- 
ent nature.  But  the  fuller  story  of  these  details  belongs  to  the  prelimi- 
naries of  the  great  final  contest  between  Catholics  and  Protestants  for 
supremacy  in  Germany,  known  as  the  Thirty  Years'  War. 

A  survey  of  these  chief  points  of  the  Peace  of  Augsburg  not  only  justi- 
fies, but  compels,  the  conclusion  that  the  famous  document  does  not 
deserve  its  historic  name.  It  was  a  mere  crying  of  "peace"  where  there 
was  no  peace.  It  did  not  attempt  to  efface  religious  differences,  but  to 
establish  a  compromise,  a  modus  vivendi.  It  was  a  "practical"  measure^ 


THE  PEACE  OF  AUGSBURG  383 

not  a  theoretical  solution,  and  attempted  nothing  more  than  a  roughly 
just  arrangement  by  which  Protestants  and  Catholics  should  thenceforth 
be  able  to  practice  their  respective  religions  without  throat-cutting.  It 
established  a  parity  of  parties  and  religions  rather  than  equal  rights  for 
persons.  The  weakness  of  the  Peace  was  that  neither  party  really 
believed  in  it,  either  as  a  principle  or  as  a  working  rule,  but  each  conceded 
a  part  of  its  claim  to  the  other  as  a  matter  of  dire  necessity.  There  was 
on  both  sides  the  hidden  purpose,  perhaps  hardly  acknowledged  as  yet 
to  themselves,  that  as  soon  as  either  party  was  strong  enough  it  would 
repudiate  the  Peace  and  either  conquer  its  rival  or  be  conquered. 

The  Peace  was  therefore  rather  the  truce  of  two  parties  who  were 
tired  of  fighting  than  the  agreement  of  foes  who  intended  henceforth  to 
live  together  without  fighting.  It  dodged  and  equivocated  instead  of 
definitely  settling  disputed  issues.  Above  all,  it  is  a  mockery  to  describe 
this  as  the  first  public  instrument  that  secured  religious  liberty.  Reli- 
gious liberty  is  an  idea  conspicuously  absent  from  it — it  does  not  even 
recognize  toleration,  save  in  the  narrowest  and  most  grudging  form:  the 
toleration  of  governments  by  each  other,  not  the  toleration  of  individuals 
by  governments.  It  legalized  the  Erastian  absolutism  of  the  princes, 
probably  the  worst  religious  system  the  wit  of  man  has  yet  been  able  to 
devise.  It  exchanged  the  spiritual  despotism  of  the  Church  for  that  of 
the  State;  the  Pope  was  replaced  by  the  prince  or  town  council.  And 
one  who  presumed  to  dissent  enjoyed  no  immunity  under  the  new  system. 
Before  he  had  the  remote  prospect  of  being  burned;  now  he  had  the  immi- 
nent certainty  of  being  fined,  imprisoned  or  banished.  The  last  state  of 
Germany  was  worse  than  the  first,  for  if  the  devil  of  popery  had  been  cast 
out,  the  seven  devils  of  sectarianism  had  taken  his  place. 

It  is  quite  unnecessary  to  say  that  the  Peace  was  very  distasteful  to 
the  Pope.  Cardinal  Caraffa  had  lately  (May  23,  1555)  been  chosen 
pontiff,  with  the  title  of  Paul  IV — a  stern,  unbending  Catholic,  whose 
most  comforting  reflection  on  his  bed  of  death  was  that  he  had  done  more 
than  they  all  to  revive  and  energize  the  Inquisition.  While  the  Diet 
was  in  session  he  implored  Ferdinand  to  dismiss  the  princes  with  every- 
thing unsettled,  rather  than  accept  the  terms  that  the  Protestants  de- 
manded. He  seems  to  have  thought  it  best,  however,  to  make  no  public 
demonstration,  and  Rome  was  at  this  juncture  spared  such  a  blunder  as 
that  of  his  successor,  Innocent  X,  who  condemned  and  declared  invalid 
the  treaty  of  Westphalia,1  by  which  the  Thirty  Years'  War  was  brought 

1  In  the  bull  Zelo  domua  Dei,  dated  November  26,  1648,  but  not  actually 
published  until  the  following  January  3:  Praedictos  utriusque  pads  articulos, 
caeteraque  in  dictis  instrument™  contenta,  ipso  jure  nulla,  invalida,  injusta,  damnata, 
omnino  fuisse,  esse  et  in  perpetuo  fore;  neminemque  ad  illorum,  etiamsi  juramento 
vallata  sint,  observationem  teneri,  atque  perinde  ac  si  nunquam  emanassent,  pro  non 


384  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

to  a  close.  The  comment  of  Raynaldus,  the  great  Catholic  historian, 
probably  expresses  in  a  pithy  sentence  the  common  opinion  of  Catholics : 
"By  which  decree  Satan  seemed  to  many  to  have  impiously  made  an 
equal  division  of  the  German  Empire  with  Christ. " * 

The  immediate  result  of  the  Peace  was  not  merely  to  restore  Protestant- 
ism in  Germany  to  the  place  it  had  held  before  the  Schmalkald  war,  but 
to  make  possible  a  considerable  advance.  Indeed,  it  is  hardly  too  much 
to  say  that  only  the  "ecclesiastical  reservation"  prevented  the  immediate 
completion  of  the  Reformation  throughout  Germany.  Though  even  that 
barrier  was  sometimes  overleaped  in  the  case  of  the  less  important  Sees, 
the  great  principalities  of  the  Rhine  were  held  by  the  Church,  as  impreg- 
nable citadels  of  the  old  faith,  and  after  a  time  these  became  the  centers 
of  a  successful  Catholic  reaction.  Two  years  after  the  conclusion  of 
the  Peace,  an  observer  not  likely  to  be  unduly  prejudiced  in  favor  of 
Protestantism,  the  ambassador  from  Venice,  wrote  to  his  government  that 
seven-tenths  of  Germany  then  belonged  to  the  Lutherans,  two-tenths  to 
the  Reformed  or  Calvinists,  and  only  one-tenth  to  the  Catholic  Church.2 

It  should  be  not  unprofitable  now  to  ask  ourselves  what  we  have  learned 
from  our  study  of  the  German  Reformation.  Do  the  facts,  as  established 
by  research  and  criticism,  and  set  forth  in  the  preceding  chapters,  justify 
any  general  conclusions,  and  if  so,  what  are  they? 

First  of  all,  we  have  seen  that  the  Reformation  was  a  complex  move- 
ment, inspired  by  a  variety  of  ideas  and  aims,  social,  political  and  reli- 
gious. German  writers  have  been  fond  of  assuming,  and  sometimes  of 
asserting,  that  only  German  peoples  have  the  true,  fervid  sense  of  religion 
necessary  to  produce  an  urgent  desire  for  reform.  This  will  hardly 
account  for  the  success  of  the  German  Reformation;  for  against  this  we 
must,  in  all  candor,  set  certain  facts:  such  as,  that  the  earliest  movements 
towards  reform  originated  among  the  Latin  nations;  and  furthermore, 
that  the  German  Reformation  really  owed  its  success  far  less  to  religious 
fervor  than  to  social  ferment  and  political  selfishness.  In  fact,  to  study 
the  movement  from  any  single  point  of  view  exclusively  is  to  accumulate 
misinformation,  not  knowledge.  The  attempt  has  been  made  throughout 
this  book  to  keep  continually  in  mind  all  three  elements  of  the  struggle,  and 
to  give  each  its  due  prominence  and  no  more.  How  successful  this  effort 
has  been,  is  for  those  who  read  to  pass  judgment.  They  have  missed, 
perhaps  not  without  regret,  the  hero-worship  and  religious  enthusiasm 

eKtantibus  et  non  factis  perpetuo  haberi  debere,  tenore  earundem  praesentium  decern- 
imus  et  dedaramus.  Et  nihilominus  ad  abundatiorem  cautelam,  articulos  praefatos 
aliaque  praemissa,  potestatis  plenitudine  penitus  damnamus,  reprobamus,  cassamus, 
annullamus,  viribusque  et  effectu  vacuamus. 

1  Raynaldus,  1555,  No.  50,  14:  570. 

2Geffcken,  "Church  and  State,"  1:  317. 


THE  PEACE  OF  AUGSBURG  385 

of  other  accounts,  but  may  find  themselves  repaid  by  a  closer  approach 
to  reality. 

From  one  point  of  view  the  Reformation  is  an  unspeakable  religious 
conviction  struggling  to  speak  itself.  Men  had  grown  weary  of  a  religion 
of  forms  and  sacraments,  of  outward  righteousness  and  inward  depravity; 
weary  of  a  religion  that  thrust  the  great  body  off  into  the  outer  courts  of 
the  temple,  while  priests  corrupted  by  self-indulgence  and  vice  claimed  to 
minister  on  their  behalf  in  holy  things;  weary  of  a  religion  that  meant 
robbery  and  oppression  in  the  name  of  God  and  demanded  submission  to 
its  exactions  on  pain  of  eternal  woe;  weary  of  a  religion  that  made  thought 
a  crime  and  the  stultification  of  reason  the  highest  virtue.  Instead  of 
this  there  was  offered  a  religion  that  assured  to  every  man  right  of  im- 
mediate access  to  God  and  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  without  the  interven- 
tion of  saint  or  sinner;  a  religion  that  directed  him  to  the  original  sources 
of  Christianity  for  the  historic  foundation  of  his  faith,  instead  of  later 
tradition  and  the  uncertain  speculations  of  the  Fathers.  It  was  a  draught 
of  living  water  to  the  thirsty,  a  breath  of  fresh  air  to  those  fainting  in  the 
desert,  and  was  eagerly  received.  It  is  this  side  of  the  Reformation  that 
has  been  most  dwelt  upon  by  Protestant  writers,  and  the  greater  part  of 
what  they  have  said  is  justified  by  facts.  Any  study  of  the  movement 
that  overlooks  or  ignores  this  side  of  it  will  by  just  so  much  fall  short  of 
a  truthful  picture.  Even  the  hero-worship  is  justified  by  facts — that 
is  to  say,  by  a  part  of  the  facts. 

The  leaders,  and  especially  Luther,  were  men  who  had  a  genius  for 
religion,  and  had  been  prepared  for  their  work  by  a  deep  spiritual  ex- 
perience. The  effect  of  his  conflict  of  soul  in  the  monastery  never  left 
Luther,  and  became  deeply  impressed  upon  the  movement  that  he  led. 
With  all  their  faults, — and  that  they  had  many  has  been  manifest  as  we 
have  traced  the  course  of  events — the  Reformers  were  men  who  feared  God 
and  served  him  according  to  their  lights.  To  them  religion  was  not  one 
of  the  concerns  of  men,  but  the  chief  concern.  They  sought,  on  the  whole 
consistently,  a  simpler  faith  and  worship  and  a  firmer  trust  in  God,  than 
the  Catholic  Church  encouraged  or  even  permitted.  Their  great  defect 
was  that,  laying  their  emphasis  chiefly  on  a  right  relation  between  man 
and  God,  they  regarded  as  far  less  important  a  right  relation  between  man 
and  man.  They  comprehended  and  tried  to  obey  the  first  great  command- 
ment of  the  law,  "Thou  shalt  love  the  Lord  thy  God  with  all  thy  heart 
and  with  all  thy  soul  and  with  all  thy  mind";  but  they  made  little  effort 
to  obey,  because  they  did  not  at  all  comprehend,  the  second  command- 
ment, which  is  like  unto  this,  "Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbor  as  thyself." 
It  is  hardly  to  be  expected,  perhaps,  that  they  should  have  recovered  the 
understanding  of  the  social  teaching  of  Jesus,  after  fifteen  centuries  of 


386  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

theological  rubbish  had  so  completely  buried  it  from  sight.  Yet  they 
cannot  be  held  altogether  guiltless  for  their  failure,  since  their  cardinal 
principle  was  the  supremacy  of  the  Scriptures.  But  the  only  part  of 
the  Scriptures  that  the  reformers  really  understood  or  valued  was  the 
Pauline  epistles;  the  rest  they  did  not  comprehend,  and  much  of  it  Luther 
at  least  was  quite  ready  to  depreciate,  and  even  to  dispense  with.  The 
original  Gospel  they  left  a  later  age  to  discover  and  proclaim. 

Yet  we  must  not  forget  that,  with  the  New  Testament  in  their  hands, 
which  Luther  himself  had  given  them  in  their  own  tongue,  little  groups 
of  Anabaptists  did  measurably  succeed  in  recovering  the  teaching  of 
Jesus  and  comprehending  its  human  bearings.  They  revived  the  social 
ideals  of  primitive  Christianity  that  had  survived  in  Catholicism  only 
in  the  monasteries,  and  there  in  a  sadly  perverted  form.  They  saw  clearly 
enough  that  a  restoration  of  apostolic  Christianity  meant  something 
more  than  modification  of  a  few  doctrines  and  ceremonies — that  it  in- 
volved the  abolition  of  rank,  recognition  of  the  dignity  and  universal 
duty  of  productive  labor,  the  simple  life  on  the  part  of  all,  voluntary 
sharing  of  possessions  with  the  more  needy,  and  the  fraternal  spirit  per- 
vading all  property  rights  as  in  early  times.  Existing  society,  they  per- 
ceived, was  so  opposed  to  the  mind  of  Christ,  that  no  compromise  with 
it  was  possible;  no  Christian  man  could  hold  office,  take  oaths,  bear  arms 
or  pay  taxes  in  such  a  state  of  society.  Could  these  groups  have  made 
their  voice  heard,  could  they  have  won  reception  for  this  real  Gospel  of 
Jesus,  the  Reformation  would  have  become  a  far  different  movement  from 
that  recorded  in  its  documents.  Three  centuries  of  struggle  and  blood- 
shed and  martyrdom  would  have  been  made  unnecessary,  and  the  world 
would  have  been  by  so  much  advanced  further  toward  social  justice 
than  it  stands  to-day.  The  Anabaptists  were  silenced,  trampled  into 
the  mud,  destroyed;  and  the  clock  of  civilization  was  set  back  three  hun- 
dred years.1 

A  candid  survey  of  the  facts  proves  that  the  Reformation  movement 
was  quite  as  much  political  as  religious.  We  might  be  glad  as  Protestants 
to  believe  that  the  new  teachings  made  their  way  merely  because  they 
were  true,  and  that  they  were  gladly  received  by  the  people  wherever 
restraints  of  law  and  force  did  not  prevent,  but  the  facts  forbid  us  to 
lay  that  flattering  unction  to  our  souls.  The  religious  revolution  succeed- 
ed because,  and  just  so  far  as,  the  German  princes  and  the  councils  of  the 
free  cities  for  motives  of  their  own — usually  selfish  and  sordid  reasons — 

1  One  is  tempted  to  sum  up  by  saying,  that  the  chief  difference,  after  all  is  said, 
between  Anabaptists  and  Lutherans  of  the  sixteenth  century  is  that  the  former 
failed  while  the  latter  succeeded;  and,  as  the  price  of  success,  the  Lutherans  were 
compelled  to  deny  their  earlier  revolutionary  teachings  and  become  the  quiet 
and  decorous  party  of  "law  and  order." 


THE  PEACE  OF  AUGSBURG  387 

took  the  matter  in  hand  and  promoted  Lutheranism.  The  new  doctrines 
might  have  prevailed  in  a  fair  field,  by  the  inherent  power  of  the  truth; 
but  in  fact  they  prevailed  nowhere,  except  the  power  of  the  State  was 
invoked  and  secured.  A  majority  of  the  States  of  the  Empire  found  it 
to  their  interest,  financial  and  political,  first  to  protect  Luther  and  finally 
to  champion  his  reforms.  Out  of  the  hurly-burly  of  change  and  strife, 
these  States  contrived  to  acquire  additional  wealth  and  power  through 
this  policy.  That  was  enough  to  stimulate  their  evangelical  piety  to  an 
almost  fanatical  zeal.  That  any  other  interest  than  self-interest  actuated 
most  of  them  there  is  the  slenderest  proof,  while  evidences  of  greed  and 
ambition  fairly  shout  themselves  at  the  student  of  all  contemporary 
documents. 

The  constitutional  struggle  that  had  long  been  going  on  in  Germany 
must  be  studied  and  understood  by  one  who  would  duly  weigh  the  motives 
of  the  princes  to  seize  on  any  weapon  that  would  avail  them  against  their 
Emperor.  In  the  light  of  such  facts  as  lie  on  the  very  surface  of  the  Ref- 
ormation literature  we  may  better  estimate  the  appeal  that  Luther's 
new  "gospel"  made  to  them.  Measured  by  its  momentous  and  enduring 
effects,  it  is  speaking  temperately  to  declare  that  Luther's  "  Address  to 
the  Christian  Nobility  of  the  German  Nation"  was  the  greatest  political 
pamphlet  ever  issued.  If  not  the  chief  cause  of  a  great  revolution,  as 
many  think  Rousseau's  "Social  Contract"  to  have  been,  it  threw  into 
the  scale  of  a  grave  constitutional  struggle  a  decisive  weight,  and  brought 
about  politico-religious  conditions  in  Germany  that  remain  practically 
unchanged  to  the  present  hour.  The  triumph  of  oligarchy  has  been  a 
lasting  one,  and  the  prince  who  succeeded  in  establishing  his  preeminence 
among  his  fellows  became  in  our  own  day,  by  virtue  of  that  preeminence, 
Emperor  of  a  new  German  Empire  that  now  claims  the  hegemony  of 
Europe. 

But  underlying  and  conditioning  both  the  religious  and  the  political 
phases  of  the  Reformation  were  its  economic  and  social  causes.  There 
had  been  since  the  Crusades  a  great  revival  of  commerce  and  manu- 
factures and  a  consequent  rapid  increase  of  wealth.  The  effect  of  this 
was  seen  in  Europe  on  every  side.  The  Reformation  marks  the  dethrone- 
ment of  the  ancient  feudal  aristocracy  (the  knights)  and  the  beginning 
of  the  new  aristocracy  of  capital.  It  was  an  aristocracy  more  intelligent 
and  more  virile,  because  less  hampered  by  the  principle  of  heredity,  but 
it  was  also  more  ruthless.  Nothing  is  sacred  to  an  aristocracy  of  the 
moneyed  class  but  gain.  Its  ethical  standards  were  as  much  lower  than 
the  older  as  money  is  of  less  worth  than  a  man.  The  old  aristocracy, 
founded  on  the  land,  felt  that  they  owed  duties  to  the  land  and  their 
tenants;  the  new  aristocracy  acknowledged  no  such  obligation  to  any- 


388  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

body — it  was  utterly  and  frankly  selfish.  While  these  changes  were  in 
progress,  the  Church  still  maintained  its  place  of  preeminence,  and  con- 
tinued to  absorb  an  undue  share  of  the  wealth  produced  by  European 
society.  The  enormous  value  of  the  endowments  of  the  parishes  and 
monasteries,  as  well  as  their  great  landed  estates,  all  exempted  from  the 
burdens  of  ordinary  taxation  and  in  large  part  withdrawn  from  productive 
enterprise,  created  a  serious  economic  problem.  The  ethical  teachings 
of  the  Church — its  forbidding  of  interest,  its  criticism  of  the  methods 
of  business,  its  approval  of  the  sumptuary  laws  that  limited  consump- 
tion, as  well  as  of  the  legal  wage,  which  forbade  heartless  exploitation 
of  the  laborer — the  commercial  class  found  "most  tolerable  and  not  to 
be  endured. "  The  Church  continued  this  policy  as  long  as  was  possible, 
long  after  it  had  ceased  to  be  practicable.  It  regarded  monopoly  and 
extortion  as  little  better  than  heresy.  The  principles  of  modern  business 
were  denounced  by  preachers  and  theologians l  as  unworthy  of  Christians, 
and  so  long  as  their  influence  was  dominant  business  was  left  mainly  to 
the  Jews,  who  were  hated  in  proportion  as  their  shrewd  practice  of  the 
rejected  principles  made  them  rich. 

All  this  provoked  the  new  capitalistic  order  to  wage  war  on  the  Church, 
and  the  part  of  the  cities  in  the  struggle — which  as  we  have  seen  was  a 
decisive  one — was  mainly  determined  by  the  economic  situation.  Capital- 
ism needed  a  free  hand  if  it  was  to  develop;  the  Church  was  a  restraining 
hand;  therefore  down  with  the  Church!  And  so  it  came  about  that 
Capitalism  in  the  sixteenth  century  was  a  force  on  the  side  of  freedom, 
a  power  for  the  promotion  of  civilization — not  at  all  because  it  cared  for 
freedom  and  civilization,  but  because  it  needed  these  as  conditions  of 
growth.  Now  it  is  an  enemy  of  freedom  and  civilization,  because,  in 
its  overgrown  state,  these  are  its  chief  enemies.  Capitalism  helped  men 
break  the  old  chains  of  feudalism.  It  destroyed  the  privilege  of  birth, 
if  it  did  immediately  substitute  the  privilege  of  wealth.  It  was  not  only 
an  indispensable,  but  a  beneficent  stage  in  the  world's  progress  toward 
liberty  and  equal  rights. 

It  is  easy  to  see  why  the  cities,  the  strongholds  of  commerce  and  the 
trades,  should  heartily  approve  a  Reformation  programme  that  held 
as  one  of  its  chief  items  the  confiscation  of  the  Church's  property  to 
secular  purposes,  and  the  putting  to  productive  uses  and  into  active  cir- 
culation a  vast  amount  of  wealth  which  had  been  locked  away  behind 
Church  doors.  This  must  have  suggested  itself  to  every  reader  as  we 
have  noted  the  bitterness  of  the  Reformation  warfare  against  monachism 
and  monastic  institutions.  The  religious  motive  is  totally  inadequate 

1  How  far  from  understanding  the  economic  questions  of  his  time  Luther  was 
may  be  seen  from  a  score  of  his  sermons,  and  especially  from  his  tract,  Von  Kaufa- 
handlung  und  Wucher,  1524  LDS,  22:  199  seq. 


THE  PEACE  OF  AUGSBURG  389 

to  account  for  this  bitterness.  We  must  look  for  explanation  to  the 
economic  facts:  the  monastic  foundations  of  Germany  had  obtained 
control  of  a  large  part  of  the  available  capital,  and  so  constituted  a  chief 
obstacle  to  the  progress  of  commerce.  The  monasteries  had  to  go,  that 
business  might  come.  Not  only  so,  they  had  made  themselves  equally 
obnoxious  to  the  guilds,  in  virtue  of  the  fact  that  a  monastery  was  an 
industrial  plant;  and  the  competition  of  these  foundations  with  the  guilds 
was  resented  by  the  latter,  precisely  as  the  competition  of  prison  contract 
labor  is  resented  by  the  trades  unions  of  our  day.  And  with  good  reason 
in  either  case,  for  the  competition  of  free  labor  with  the  labor  of  prisons 
or  monastic  orders  is  essentially  unfair  and  therefore  intolerable.  Eco- 
nomic hostility  to  monachism  was  more  active  than  religious,  therefore,  and 
quite  as  justified  by  the  facts.  Not  the  corruption  of  the  monasteries, 
not  the  essentially  unchristian  character  of  monachism,  was  the  real 
cause  of  their  suppression,  but  their  antisocial  effects.  True,  the  reli- 
gious motive  was  the  one  publicly  alleged;  but  communities  as  well  as 
individuals  often  have  two  reasons  for  their  procedure:  one  the  real  rea- 
son, one  the  reason  that  they  give.  And  it  is  always  a  relatively  simple 
matter  to  find  many  excellent  reasons  to  give,  for  doing  whatever  one 
ardently  desires  to  do. 

In  these  economic  aspects,  therefore,  the  Reformation  must  be  looked 
upon  as  a  triumph  of  the  bourgeoisie  or  middle  class.  As  w,e  have  seen, 
it  was  the  support  of  the  towns  that  turned  the  scale  in  at  least  twe 
crises  and  saved  Protestanism  from  utter  suppression,  and  the  towns  did 
not  fail  to  receive  their  reward.  Next  to  the  princes,  if  even  second  to 
them,  they  reaped  most  of  the  fruits  of  success.  It  would  not  be  far 
from  exact  accuracy  to  say  that  if  the  princes  snatched  from  the  struggle 
the  greater  increase  of  political  power,  the  towns  on  their  part  obtained 
the  greater  share  of  the  wealth.  Each  got  what  it  chiefly  sought  and 
prized  most  highly,  and  both  were  therefore  reasonably  content  with  the 
outcome.  The  knights  and  the  peasants  were  the  only  classes  that  failed 
to  profit  in  some  way.  The  former  were  quite  ruined,  and  the  same  might 
be  said  of  the  latter,  if  men  who  have  nothing  to  begin  with  can  be  said 
to  be  ruined  by  their  failure  to  gain  something. 

From  some  points  of  view  the  Reformation  appears  almost  a  failure. 
It  proved  to  be  a  perversion  rather  than  a  development  of  the  Renaissance. 
The  revival  of  letters  and  art  of  the  fifteenth  century  had  as  its  main 
objective  the  deliverance  of  the  human  spirit  from  the  despotism  of  the 
past;  the  religious  revival  of  the  sixteenth  century  did  not  dethrone 
despotism,  it  merely  changed  dynasties.  It  substituted  for  the  universal 
Catholic  Pope  a  group  of  new  Protestant  popelets:  pope  Martin  in 
Germany,  pope  Henry  in  England,  pope  John  at  Geneva.  Men  soon 


390  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

found  that  to  exchange  tyrants  was  to  make  no  great  progress  in  liberty. 
When  for  an  infallible  Church  there  was  imposed  on  them  an  infallible 
Bible,  the  world  found  that  it  had  not  broken  its  chains  but  only  changed 
the  fashion  of  its  fetters.  As  Lessing  said,  Luther  had  freed  the  world 
from  the  yoke  of  tradition,  only  to  bind  it  with  the  yet  more  intolerable 
yoke  of  the  letter.  The  Protestants  would  no  longer  admit  the  authority 
of  the  Fathers,  but  they  followed  Luther  and  Calvin  with  a  slavishness 
that  no  Catholic  has  ever  shown  hi  following  Augustine  and  Jerome. 

Besides,  Protestantism  discredited  itself  with  all  thinking  men  by 
the  freakish  and  inconsistent  manner  in  which  it  enforced  that  which  it 
avowed  as  its  fundamental  principle:  the  supremacy  of  Scripture.  The 
principle  was  shown  by  the  Protestant  practice  to  be  only  a  convenient 
war  cry,  not  a  thing  sincerely  believed  and  consistently  followed.  The 
Protestants  objected  to  the  Catholic  practice  of  the  invocation  of  saints 
as  unscriptural,  but  themselves  invoked  the  Holy  Spirit,  which  is  equally 
without  Scriptural  warrant.  For,  if  the  Protestant  claim  that  his  prac- 
tice is  a  fair  inference  from  what  is  taught  in  Scripture,  the  Catholic 
may  make  the  same  claim  for  his,  and  as  matter  of  fact  has  made  it. 
The  Protestant  vehemently  rejects  holy  days,  but  insists  on  the  observ- 
ance of  Sunday,  for  which  there  is  no  better  warrant  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, and  is  in  a  fair  way  to  establish  a  Christian  Year  of  his  own,  differ- 
ing from  that  of  the  Catholic  Church  only  in  that  it  lacks  the  latter's 
historic  foundation  and  sacred  associations.  For  while  the  Protestant 
will  not  have  Lent  or  Holy  Week,  Easter  or  Whitsunday,  he  has  estab- 
lished his  Week  of  Prayer,  his  Thanksgiving  Day,  and  is  now  adding 
his  Children's  Day,  Mother's  Day,  and  other  such  like,  so  that  every 
month  promises  to  have  one  or  two  memorial  Sundays  at  least.  If 
this  differs  from  the  Catholic  Calendar,  one  might  with  much  plausibility 
maintain  that  it  differs  for  the  worse.  To  argue  that  it  is  Scriptural 
would  require  an  impudence  to  which  as  yet  no  Protestant  has  been 
equal. 

The  age  of  Luther  was  incapable  of  understanding  that  the  revelation 
of  God  to  man  is  a  progressive  revelation,  not  a  thing  once  for  all  accom- 
plished and  written  down  in  a  book;  and  that  man's  search  for  truth  is 
rewarded,  not  by  full  attainment,  but  by  gradual  approximation.  Luther 
himself,  though  he  professed  to  receive  the  Scriptures  as  final  authority, 
never  committed  himself  to  any  definite  statement  of  what  constitutes 
Scripture,  or  what  is  the  content  of  the  doctrine  of  inspiration.  He  had 
quarrel  with  the  canon,  both  of  Old  and  New  Testaments,  and  did  not 
hesitate  to  assert  that  certain  books  should  be  banished,  as  of  no  authority. 
He  dealt  with  no  little  freedom  with  those  that  he  accepted,  and  really 
respected  none  but  those  that  contained  what  he  regarded  as  cardinal 


THE  PEACE  OF  AUGSBURG  391 

Christian  doctrine.  He  made  Paul  his  standard  of  orthodoxy,  and  what- 
ever would  not  square  with  his  interpretation  of  Paul  must  of  necessity  be 
wrong.  But  his  followers  rejected  these  vagaries,  avowed  acceptance 
of  the  whole  canon,  and  elaborated  a  doctrine  of  inspiration  of  the  most 
extreme  and  rigid  type.  The  result  was,  in  a  single  generation,  to  estab- 
lish a  system  of  Protestant  scholasticism,  as  mechanical  and  destructive 
to  religious  freedom  as  the  older  Catholic  scholasticism,  and  far  less 
intellectually  respectable.  For  much  of  this,  they  had  the  warrant  of 
Luther  himself.  In  beginning  his  revolt  against  Rome,  he  had  appealed  to 
reason,  because  that  was  a  handy  weapon  to  use  against  the  Papacy. 
As  the  Reformation  progressed,  he  repudiated  reason  with  ever  increasing 
violence,  and  his  last  sermon  at  Wittenberg,  preached  a  few  weeks  before 
his  death,1  was  an  impassioned  appeal  to  distrust  reason  as  sure  to  mis- 
lead men  into  error  and  irreligion. 

The  Reformation  accomplished  little  for  religious  liberty.  With  an 
inconsistency  almost  incredible  and  quite  inexplicable,  the  reformers 
upheld  the  right  of  private  judgment  for  themselves,  when  they  differed 
from  Rome,  and  then  banished  or  burned  those  whose  private  judgment 
differed  from  their  own.  They  were  equally  insistent  in  claiming  liberty 
for  themselves  and  in  denying  it  to  others.  But  they  had  taught  the 
true  doctrine,  if  they  did  not  apprehend  or  practice  it,  and  in  process  of 
time  it  made  its  way.  Once  taught  it  could  not  be  untaught.  By  his 
inconsistency  Luther  has  much  dimmed  his  own  glory,  but  he  could 
retard  only  for  a  time  the  progress  of  the  truth.  His  earlier  service  to 
the  world  as  a  teacher  of  religious  liberty,  grounding  it  in  the  true  prin- 
ciples of  Scripture  and  reason,  must  be  held  to  outweigh  his  later  treason 
to  truth  he  had  once  seen  so  clearly  and  so  loudly  proclaimed.  The 
world  followed  his  teaching,  not  his  example. 

The  Reformation  was  not  a  great  immediate  ethical  force.  Naturally, 
Roman  Catholic  writers  have  made  much  of  this.  Men  had  been  demand- 
ing a  Reformation  for  several  centuries,  but  they  meant  by  it  an  ethical 
change  in  the  Church,  an  improvement  in  morals.  For  the  most  part 
they  had  no  quarrel  with  the  teachings  or  the  ritual  of  the  Church,  but 
they  revolted  from  its  corruptions  in  head  and  members.  Instead  of 
this  ethical  renovation  Luther  offered  novelties  in  doctrine,  a  theological 
reform,  not  an  ethical.  This  was  one  reason  why  men  like  Erasmus, 
who  in  the  beginning  sympathized  with  Luther  and  wished  him  well, 
were  constrained  as  his  movement  developed  to  sever  all  connection 
with  it,  and  even  to  become  its  active  opponents.  The  Reformers  were 
themselves  greatly  disappointed  with  the  ethical  results  of  their  work. 
Their  later  writings  are  filled  with  complaints  of  the  horrible  moral  deteri- 

1  January  17,  1546.    See  Kostlin,  2:  616,  and  cf.  LDS,  16:  264-275. 


392  THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY 

oration  of  the  people.1  Possibly  the  sharpness  of  their  disappointment 
led  to  some  exaggeration  of  statement,  but  that  there  was  much 
foundation  of  truth  underneath  these  complaints  need  not  be  doubted. 
The  Reformation  did  not  accomplish  a  moral  renovation  of  Germany, 
account  for  the  fact  as  we  may. 

Nor  was  so  much  accomplished  as  might  have  been  hoped  for  the  cause 
of  enlightenment.  Owing  to  its  bibliolatry,  the  Reformation  soon  de- 
veloped a  Protestant  obscurantism  as  fatal  to  human  progress  as  the 
Catholic  obscurantism  had  ever  been.  It  was  the  continuance  of  the 
Renaissance  in  the  Aufkldrung  of  the  eighteenth  century  that  gave  the 
world  its  next  great  impulse  along  the  avenue  of  thought  and  discovery. 
It  was  not  until  the  country  of  Luther  broke  away  from  all  that  was 
distinctive  of  Lutheranism  that  it  acquired  the  leadership  of  the  world 
in  philosophy  and  science.  So  long  as  it  was  content  to  be  the  prisoner 
of  Protestant  scholasticism,  Germany  remained  in  the  rear  of  the  en- 
lightened nations  of  Europe.  But  the  Aufkldrung  left  to  orthodoxy 
thenceforth  the  task  of  contending,  if  it  would,  about  the  things  concern- 
ing which  none  of  us  know  much,  and  most  of  us  know  nothing,  and  none 
of  us  need  to  know  anything,  and  turned  the  minds  of  adventurous  and 
constructive  thinkers  to  the  conquest  of  nature  and  the  solution  of  the 
problems  of  society. 

These  conclusions  are  so  far  from  agreeing  with  the  traditional  Prot- 
estant views  of  the  Reformation  that  some  may  be  prompted  to  inquire, 
If  then  the  immediate  results  of  the  movement  are  so  disappointing,  if 
it  did  almost  nothing  for  social  reorganization,  for  civil  and  religious 
liberty,  for  the  enlightenment  of  the  world  and  its  advance  in  civiliza- 
tion, what  is  its  significance?  Must  we  be  content,  with  the  old  man  in 
Southey's  poem  on  the  battle  of  Blenheim,  to  the  question,  "But  what 
good  came  of  it  at  last, "  to  answer, 

"Why  that  I  cannot  tell,"  said  he; 
"But  'twas  a  famous  victory." 

Gan  we  say  no  more  of  the  Reformation  than  that  it  was  a  great  move- 
ment, a  historic  struggle,  a  "famous  victory"?  Was  Europe  in  reality 
only  "marking  time"  in  the  sixteenth  century,  or  was  there  a  real 
advance?  The  world  has  always  believed  the  latter  to  be  true,  and  on 
grounds  that  still  hold  good.  The  Reformation  is  important  to  us  to-day 
not  so  much  for  what  it  immediately  accomplished,  as  for  what  it  made 

1  See  the  truly  remarkable  collection  of  testimonies  from  Luther's  writings 
made  by  Dollinger  in  Die  Reformation,  ihre  innere  Entwicklung  und  ihre  Wirkungen, 
3  vols.,  Regensburg,  1848,  1:  318-342.  A  similar  collection  of  testimonies  from 
Melanchthon  is  given  in  pp.  372-418.  Cf.  also  the  most  important  recent 
polemic  work  by  a  Roman  Catholic  author,  Denifle,  Luther  und  Lutherthum. 
Mainz,  1904,  1909,  2:16,  269  seq.,  358  seq. 


THE  PEACE  OF  AUGSBURG  393 

possible.  It  shattered  many  idols  and  some  ideals,  but  the  new  ideals 
that  it  offered  in  their  stead  have  ever  since  ruled  the  world.  It  intro- 
duced into  Europe  a  new  spirit,  and  though  its  leaders  became  fright- 
ened and  believed  they  had  created  a  Frankenstein  and  did  their  best  to 
undo  their  work,  they  did  not  succeed.  Like  Pandora,  they  had  released 
something  that  could  not  again  be  confined.  The  new  spirit  survived 
their  futile  attempts  to  cripple  and  imprison  it,  and  is  the  spirit  of  the 
modern  world.  That  spirit  is  the  conviction  that  nothing  is  to  be  accepted 
as  truth  merely  because  it  is  old,  that  nothing  is  to  be  accepted  on  au- 
thority, save  the  authority  of  the  truth  itself;  that  everything  is  subject 
to  inquiry,  and  only  that  which  bears  every  test  of  reason  and  experience 
can  make  good  its  claim  to  be  truth. 


APPENDIXES 


APPENDIXES 


DISPUTATION     OF     DR.     MARTIN     LUTHER     CONCERNING     PENITENCE      AND 

INDULGENCES 

IN  the  desire  and  with  the  purpose  of  elucidating  the  truth,  a  dis- 
putation will  be  held  on  the  subscribed  propositions  at  Wittenberg, 
under  the  presidency  of  the  reverend  Father  Martin  Luther,  monk  of 
the  Order  of  St.  Augustine,  Master  of  Arts  and  of  Sacred  Theology, 
and  ordinary  Reader  of  the  same  in  that  place.  He  therefore  asks  those 
who  cannot  be  present  and  discuss  the  subject  with  us  orally,  to  do  so 
by  letter  in  their  absence.  In  the  name  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  Amen. 

1.  Our  Lord  and  Master,  Jesus  Christ,  in  saying,  " Repent  ye"  etc. 
intended  that  the  whole  life  of  believers  should  be  penitence. 

2.  This  word  cannot  be  understood  of  sacramental  penance,  that 
is,  of  the  confession  and  satisfaction  performed  under  the  ministry  of 
priests. 

3.  It  does  not,  however,  refer  solely  to  inward  penitence;  nay,  such 
inward  penitence  is  naught,  unless  it  outwardly  produces  various  mor- 
tifications of  the  flesh. 

4.  The  penalty  thus  continues  as  long  as  the  hatred  of  self — that  is, 
true  inward  penitence — continues;  namely,  until  our  entrance  into  the 
kingdom  of  heaven. 

5.  The  Pope  has  neither  the  will  nor  the  power  to  remit  any  penalties, 
except  those  that  he  has  imposed  by  his  own  authority,  or  by  that  of 
the  canons. 

6.  The  Pope  has  no  power  to  remit  any  guilt,  except  by  declaring 
and  warranting  it  to  have  been  remitted  by  God;  or  at  most  by  remit- 
ting cases  reserved  for  himself ;  in  which  cases,  if  his  power  were  despised, 
guilt  would  certainly  remain. 

7.  God  never  remits  any  man's  guilt,  without  at  the  same  time 
subjecting  him,  humbled  in  all  things,  to  the  authority  of  his  representa- 
tive, the  priest. 

8.  The  penitential  canons  are  imposed  only  on  the  living,  and  no 
burden  ought  to  be  imposed  on  the  dying,  according  to  them. 

9.  Hence  the  Holy  Spirit  acting  in  the  Pope  does  well  for  us,  in  that 
in  his  decrees,  he  always  makes  exception  of  the  article  of  death  and  of 
necessity. 

10.  Those  priests  act  wrongly  and  unlearnedly,  who,  in  the  case  of  the 
dying,  reserve  the  canonical  penances  for  purgatory. 

11.  Those  tares  about  changing  of  the  canonical  penalty  into  the 
penalty  of  purgatory  seem  surely  to  have  been  sown  while  the  bishops 
were  asleep. 


398  APPENDIXES 

12.  Formerly  the  canonical  penalties  were  imposed  not  after,  but 
before  absolution,  as  tests  of  true  contrition. 

13.  The  dying  pay  all  penalties  by  death,  and  are  already  dead  to  the 
canon  laws,  and  are  by  right  relieved  from  them. 

14.  The  imperfect  soundness  or  charity  of  a  dying  person  necessarily 
brings  with  it  great  fear,  and  the  less  it  is,  the  greater  the  fear  it  brings. 

15.  This  fear  and  horror  is  sufficient  by  itself,  to  say  nothing  of 
other  things,  to  constitute  the  pains  of  purgatory,  since  it  is  very  near 
to  the  horror  of  despair. 

16.  Hell,  purgatory  and  heaven  appear  to  differ  as  despair,  almost- 
despair  and  peace  of  mind,  differ. 

17.  With  souls  in  purgatory  it  seems  that  it  must  needs  be  that,  as 
horror  diminishes,  so  charity  increases. 

18.  Nor  does  it  seem  to  be  proved  by  any  reasoning  or  any  scriptures 
that  they  are  outside  of  the  state  of  merit  or  of  the  increase  of  charity. 

19.  Nor  does  this  appear  to  be  proved,  that  they  are  sure  and  con- 
fident of  their  own  blessedness,  at  least  all  of  them,  though  we  may  be 
very  sure  of  it. 

20.  Therefore  the  Pope,  when  he  speaks  of  the  plenary  remission  of  all 
penalties,  does  not  mean  simply  of  all,  but  only  of  those  imposed  by  himself. 

21.  Thus  those  preachers  of  indulgences  are  in  error  who  say  that, 
by  the  indulgences  of  the  Pope,  a  man  is  loosed  and  saved  from  all 
punishment. 

22.  For  in  fact  he  remits  to  souls  in  purgatory  no  penalty  which  they 
would  have  had  to  pay  in  this  life  according  to  the  canons. 

23.  If  any  entire  remission  of  all  penalties  can  be  granted  to  any,  it 
is  certain  that  it  is  granted  to  none  but  the  most  perfect,  that  is,  to  very 
few. 

24.  Hence  the  greater  part  of  the  people  must  needs  be  deceived  by 
this  indiscriminate  and  high-sounding  promise  of  release  from  penalties. 

25.  Such  power  as  the  Pope  has  over  purgatory  hi  general,  such  has 
every  bishop  in  his  own  diocese,  and  every  curate  in  his  own  parish,  in 
particular. 

26.  The  Pope  acts  most  rightly  in  granting  remission  to  souls,  not 
by  the  power  of  the  keys  (which  is  of  no  avail  in  this  case)  but  by  way 
of  intercession. 

27.  They  preach  man,  who  say  that  the  soul  flies  out  of  purgatory 
as  soon  as  the  money  thrown  into  the  chest  rattles. 

28.  It  is  certain  that,  when  the  money  rattles  in  the  chest,  avarice 
and  gain  may  be  increased,  but  the  intercession  of  the  Church  depends 
on  the  will  of  God  alone. 

29.  Who  knows  whether  all  the  souls  in  purgatory  desire  to  be  re- 
deemed from  it,  according  to  the  story  told  of  Saints  Severinus  and 
Paschal. 

30.  No  man  is  sure  of  the  reality  of  his  own  contrition,  much  less  of 
the  attainment  of  plenary  remission. 

31.  Rare  as  is  a  true  penitent,  so  rare  is  one  who  truly  buys  indul- 
gences— that  is  to  say,  most  rare. 

32.  Those  who  believe  that,  through  letters  of  pardon,  they  are  made 
sure  of  their  own  salvation,  will  be  eternally  damned  along  with  their 
teachers. 


APPENDIXES  399 

33.  We  must  especially  beware  of  those  who  say  that  these  pardons 
from  the  Pope  are  that  inestimable  gift  of  God  by  which  man  is  reconciled 
to  God. 

34.  For  the  grace  conveyed  by  these  pardons  has  respect  only  to  the 
penalties  of  sacramental  satisfaction,  which  are  of  human  appointment. 

35.  They  preach  no  Christian  doctrine,  who  teach  that  contrition  is 
not  necessary  for  those  who  buy  souls  out  of  purgatory  or  buy  confessional 
licenses. 

36.  Every  Christian  who  feels  true  compunction  has  of  right  plenary 
remission  of  pain  and  guilt,  even  without  letters  of  pardon. 

37.  Every  true  Christian,  whether  living  or  dead,  has  a  share  in  all 
the  benefits  of  Christ  and  of  the  Church,  given  him  by  God,  even  without 
letters  of  pardon. 

38.  The  remission,  however,  imparted  by  the  Pope  is  by  no  means  to 
be  despised,  since  it  is,  as  I  have  said,  a  declaration  of  the  divine  remission. 

39.  It  is  a  most  difficult  thing,  even  for  the  most  learned  theologians, 
to  exalt  at  the  same  time  in  the  eyes  of  the  people  the  ample  effect  of 
pardons  and  the  necessity  of  true  contrition. 

40.  True  contrition  seeks  and  loves  punishment;  while  the  ampleness 
of  pardons  relaxes  it,  and  causes  men  to  hate  it,  or  at  least  gives  occasion 
for  them  to  do  so. 

41.  Apostolical  pardons  ought  to  be  proclaimed  with  caution,  lest 
the  people  should  falsely  suppose  that  they  are  placed  before  other  good 
works  of  charity. 

42.  Christians  should  be  taught  that  it  is  not  the  mind  of  the  Pope  that 
the  buying  of  pardons  is  to  be  in  any  way  compared  to  works  of  mercy. 

43.  Christians  should  be  taught  that  he  who  gives  to  a  poor  man,  or 
lends  to  a  needy  man,  does  better  than  if  he  bought  pardons. 

44.  Because,  by  a  work  of  charity,  charity  increases,  and  the  man 
becomes  better;  while,  by  means  of  pardons,  he  does  not  become  better, 
but  only  freer  from  punishment. 

45.  Christians  should  be  taught  that  he  who  sees  anyone  in  need,  and, 
passing  him  by,  gives  money  for  pardons,  is  not  purchasing  for  himself 
the  indulgences  of  the  Pope,  but  the  anger  of  God. 

46.  Christians  should  be  taught  that,  unless  they  have  superfluous 
wealth,  they  are  bound  to  keep  what  is  necessary  for  the  use  of  their 
own  households,  and  by  no  means  to  lavish  it  on  pardons. 

47.  Christians  should  be  taught  that,  while  they  are  free  to  buy 
pardons,  they  are  not  commanded  to  do  so. 

48.  Christians  should  be  taught  that  the  Pope,  in  granting  pardons, 
has  both  more  need  and  more  desire  that  devout  prayer  should  be  made 
for  him  than  that  money  should  be  readily  paid. 

49.  Christians  should  be  taught  that  the  Pope's  pardons  are  useful, 
if  they  do  not  put  their  trust  in  them,  but  most  hurtful,  if  through  them 
they  lose  the  fear  of  God. 

50.  Christians  should  be  taught  that,  if  the  Pope  were  acquainted 
with  the  exactions  of  the  preachers  of  pardons,  he  would  prefer  that  the 
Basilica  of  St.  Peter  should  be  burnt  to  ashes,  than  that  it  should  be 
built  up  with  the  skin,  flesh  and  bones  of  his  sheep. 

51.  Christians  should  be  taught  that,  as  it  would  be  the  duty,  so  it 
would  be  the  wish  of  the  Pope,  even  to  sell,  if  necessary,  the  Basilica 


400  APPENDIXES 

of  St.  Peter,  and  to  give  of  his  own  money  to  very  many  of  those  from 
whom  the  preachers  of  pardons  extract  money. 

52.  Vain  is  the  hope  of  salvation  through  letters  of  pardon,  even 
if  a  commissary — nay,  the  Pope  himself — were  to  pledge  his  own  soul 
for  them. 

53.  They  are  enemies  of  Christ  and  of  the  Pope,  who,  in  order  that 
pardons  may  be  preached,  condemn  the  word  of  God  to  utter  silence  in 
other  churches. 

54.  Wrong  is  done  to  the  word  of  God  when,  in  the  same  sermon,  an 
equal  or  longer  time  is  spent  on  pardons  than  on  it. 

55.  The  mind  of  the  Pope  necessarily  is  that,  if  pardons,  which  are 
a  very  small  matter,  are  celebrated  with  single  bells,  single  processions, 
and  single  ceremonies,  the  Gospel,  which  is  a  very  great  matter,  should 
be  preached  with  a  hundred  bells,  a  hundred  processions  and  a  hundred 
ceremonies. 

56.  The  treasures  of  the  Church,  whence  the  Pope  grants  indulgences, 
are  neither  sufficiently  named  nor  known  among  the  people  of  Christ. 

57.  It  is  clear  that  they  are  at  least  not  temporal  treasures,  for  these 
are  not  so  readily  lavished,  but  only  accumulated,  by  many  of  the  preach- 
ers. 

58.  Nor  are  they  the  merits  of  Christ  and  of  the  saints,  for  these, 
independently  of  the  Pope,  are  always  working  grace  to  the  inner  man, 
and  the  cross,  death  and  hell  to  the  outer  man. 

59.  St.  Lawrence  said  that  the  treasures  of  the  Church  are  the  poor 
of  the  Church,  but  he  spoke  according  to  the  use  of  the  word  in  his  time. 

60.  We  are  not  speaking  rashly  when  we  say  that  the  keys  of  the 
Church,  bestowed  through  the  merits  of  Christ,  are  that  treasure. 

61.  For  it  is  clear  that  the  power  of  the  Pope  is  alone  sufficient  for 
the  remission  of  penalties  and  reserved  cases. 

62.  The  true  treasure  of  the  Church  is  the  holy  Gospel  of  the  glory 
and  grace  of  God. 

63.  This  treasure,  however,  is  deservedly  most  hateful,  because  it 
makes  the  first  to  be  last. 

64.  While  the  treasure  of  indulgences  is  deservedly  most  acceptable, 
because  it  makes  the  last  to  be  first. 

65.  Hence  the  treasures  of  the  Gospel  are  nets,  wherewith  of  old 
they  fished  for  the  men  of  riches. 

66.  The  treasures  of  indulgences  are  nets,  wherewith  they  now  fish 
for  the  riches  of  men. 

67.  Those  indulgences,  which  the  preachers  loudly  proclaim  to  be 
the  greatest  graces,  are  seen  to  be  truly  such  as  regards  the  promotion 
of  gain. 

68.  Yet  they  are  in  reality  in  no  degree  to  be  compared  to  the  grace 
of  God  and  the  piety  of  the  cross. 

69.  Bishops  and  curates  are  bound  to  receive  the  commissaries  of 
apostolical  pardons  with  all  reverence. 

70.  But  they  are  still  more  bound  to  see  to  it  with  all  their  eyes,  and 
take  heed  with  all  their  ears,  that  these  men  do  not  preach  their  own 
dreams  in  place  of  the  Pope's  commission. 

71.  He  who  speaks  against  the  truth  of  apostolical  pardons,  let  him 
be  anathema  and  accursed. 


APPENDIXES  401 

72.  But  he,  on  the  other  hand,  who  exerts  himself  against  the  wan- 
tonness and  license  of  speech  of  the  preachers  of  pardons,  let  him  be 
blessed. 

73.  As  the  Pope  justly  thunders  against  those  who  use  any  kind  of 
contrivance  to  the  injury  of  the  traffic  in  pardons, 

74.  Much  more  is  it  his  intention  to  thunder  against  those  who, 
under  the  pretext  of  pardons,  use  contrivances  to  the  injury  of  holy 
charity  and  of  truth. 

75.  To  think  that  papal  pardons  have  such  power  that  they  could 
absolve  a  man  even  if — by  an  impossibility — he  had  violated  the  Mother 
of  God,  is  madness. 

76.  We  affirm  on  the  contrary,  that  papal  pardons  cannot  take  away 
even  the  least  of  venial  sins,  as  regards  its  guilt. 

77.  The  saying  that,  even  if  St.  Peter  were  now  Pope,  he  could  grant 
no  greater  graces,  is  blasphemy  against  St.  Peter  and  the  Pope. 

78.  We  affirm  on  the  contrary  that  both  he  and  any  other  Pope  has 
greater  graces  to  grant,  namely,  the  Gospel,  powers,  gifts  of  healing,  etc. 
(1  Cor.  xii.  9). 

79.  To  say  that  the  cross  set  up  among  the  insignia  of  the  papal 
arms  is  of  equal  power  with  the  cross  of  Christ,  is  blasphemy. 

80.  Those  bishops,  curates  and  theologians  who  allow  such  discourses 
to  have  currency  among  the  people,  will  have  to  render  an  account. 

81.  This  license  in  the  preaching  of  pardons  makes  it  no  easy  thing, 
even  for  learned  men,  to  protect  the  reverence  due  to  the  Pope  against 
the  calumnies,  or,  at  all  events,  the  keen  questionings  of  the  laity. 

82.  As  for  instance:    Why  does  not  the  Pope  empty  purgatory  for 
the  sake  of  most  holy  charity  and  of  the  supreme  necessity  of  souls — 
this  being  the  most  just  of  all  reasons — if  he  redeems  an  infinite  number 
of  souls  for  the  sake  of  that  most  fatal  thing,  money,  to  be  spent  on  build- 
ing a  basilica — this  being  a  very  slight  reason? 

83.  Again:    Why  do  funeral  masses  and  anniversary  masses  for  the 
deceased  continue,  and  why  does  not  the  Pope  return,  or  permit  the 
withdrawal  of  the  funds  bequeathed  for  this  purpose,  since  it  is  a  wrong 
to  pray  for  those  already  redeemed? 

84.  Again:    What  is  this  new  kindness  of  God  and  the  Pope,  in  that, 
for  money's  sake,  they  permit  an  impious  man  and  an  enemy  of  God  to 
redeem  a  pious  soul  that  loves  God,  and  yet  do  not  redeem  that  same  pious 
and  beloved  soul,  out  of  free  charity,  on  account  of  its  own  need? 

85.  Again:    Why  is  it  that  the  penitential  canons,  long  since  abro- 
gated and  dead  in  themselves  in  very  fact  and  not  only  by  usage,  are  yet 
still  redeemed  with  money,  through  the  granting  of  indulgences,  as  if 
they  were  full  of  life. 

86.  Again:    Why  does  not  the  Pope,  whose  riches  are  at  this  day 
more  ample  than  those  of  the  wealthiest  of  the  wealthy,  build  the  one 
basilica  of  St.  Peter  with  his  own  money,  rather  than  with  that  of  poor 
believers? 

87.  Again :    What  does  the  Pope  remit  or  impart  to  those  who,  through 
perfect  contrition,  have  a  right  to  plenary  remission  and  participation? 

88.  Again:    What  greater  good  would  the  Church  receive  if  the  Pope, 
instead  of  once,  as  he  does  now,  were  to  bestow  these  remissions  and 
participations  a  hundred  times  a  day  on  any  one  of  the  faithful? 


402  APPENDIXES 

89.  Since  it  is  the  salvation  of  souls,  rather  than  money,  that  the 
Pope  seeks  by  his  pardons,  why  does  he  suspend  the  letters  and  pardons 
granted  long  ago,  since  they  are  equally  efficacious? 

90.  To  repress  these  scruples  and  arguments  of  the  laity  by  force 
alone,  and  not  to  solve  them  by  giving  reasons,  is  to  expose  the  Church 
and  the  Pope  to  the  ridicule  of  their  enemies,  and  to  make  Christian  men 
unhappy. 

91.  If  then  pardons  were  preached  according  to  the  spirit  and  mind 
of  the  Pope,  all  these  questions  would  be  resolved  with  ease;  nay,  would 
not  exist. 

92.  Away  then  with  all  those  prophets  who  say  to  the  people  of  Christ, 
" Peace,  peace,"  and  there  is  no  peace. 

93.  Blessed  be  all  those  prophets  who  say  to  the  people  of  Christ, 
"The  cross,  the  cross,"  and  there  is  no  cross. 

94.  Christians  should  be  exhorted  to  strive  to  follow  Christ  their 
Head  through  pains,  deaths  and  hells. 

95.  And  thus  trust  to  enter  heaven  through  many  tribulations,  rather 
than  in  the  security  of  peace. 

PROTESTATION 

I,  Martin  Luther,  Doctor,  of  the  order  of  Monks  at  Wittenberg, 
desire  to  testify  publicly  that  certain  propositions  against  pontifical 
indulgences,  as  they  call  them,  have  been  put  forth  by  me.  Now,  al- 
though, up  to  the  present  time,  neither  this  most  celebrated  and  renowned 
school  of  ours,  nor  any  civil  or  ecclesiastical  power  has  condemned  me, 
yet  there  are,  as  I  hear,  some  men  of  headlong  and  audacious  spirit,  who 
dare  to  pronounce  me  a  heretic  as  though  the  matter  had  been  thoroughly 
looked  into  and  studied.  But  on  my  part,  as  I  have  often  done  before, 
so  now,  too,  I  implore  all  men,  by  the  faith  of  Christ,  either  to  point  out 
to  me  a  better  way,  if  such  a  way  has  been  divinely  revealed  to  any,  or 
at  least  to  submit  their  opinion  to  the  judgment  of  God  and  the  Church. 
For  I  am  neither  so  rash  as  to  wish  that  my  sole  opinion  should  be  pre- 
ferred to  that  of  all  other  men,  nor  so  senseless  as  to  be  willing  that  the 
word  of  God  should  be  made  to  give  place  to  fables,  devised  by  human 
reason. 

II 
TETZEL'S  THESES  ON  INDULGENCES — FIRST  SERIES  l 

In  order  that  the  truth  may  appear,  and  errors  be  suppressed,  and, 
after  due  consideration,  objections  against  Catholic  truth  be  answered: 
brother  John  Tetzel,  of  the  order  of  Preachers,  Bachelor  of  Sacred 
Theology,  and  Inquisitor  of  heretical  pravity,  will  sustain  the  sub- 
scribed propositions  in  the  most  distinguished  university  at  Frankfort- 
on-Oder. 

To  the  praise  of  God,  for  the  defence  of  the  Catholic 
faith,  and  for  the  honor  of  the  Holy  Apostolic  See. 

1  For  the  Latin  text  of  these  theses,  see  Loscher,  1:504  seq.,  and  LOL,  27:294 
seq.  Tetzel  was  never  believed  to  be  the  author  of  the  theses  published  under  his 
name,  though  the  composition  of  the  first  series,  at  least,  does  not  seem  to  be  beyond 
his  very  ordinary  capacity.  Luther  voiced  the  common  rumor  when  he  said, 
"  Conrad  Wimpina  is  claimed  by  all  as  the  author  of  those  theses,  and  I  think  it 
certain  that  he  did  so."  Wimpina  was  professor  in  the  university  at  Frankfort- 
on-Oder  and  a  Catholic  theologian  of  some  note. 


APPENDIXES  403 

I.  Our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  [wished  to  teach  all]  the  sacraments  of 
the  new  law,  by  which  he  wished  all  to  be  bound,  after  his  passion  and 
ascension,  (2)  and  he  wished  to  teach  all  before  his  passion  by  his  most 
suitable  proclamation. 

3.  Therefore  he  errs,  whoever  says  that  Christ,  when  he  proclaimed 
" Repent  ye,"  wished  inward  repentance  and  outward  mortification  of 
the  flesh  in  such  wise,  (4)  that  he  could  not  also  teach  or  at  the  same  time 
understand  the  sacrament  of  penance  and  its  parts — confession  and 
satisfaction — as  obligatory.  Nay,  verily,  it  avails  nothing  even  if  inward 
penance  works  outward  mortification  unless  confession  and  satisfaction 
are  accompanied  by  deed  and  prayer.  (1,  2)1 

5.  This  satisfaction  (since  God  does  not  allow  a  transgression  without 
a  penalty)  is  made  through  penalty,  or  its  equivalent  in  the  divine  accept- 
ance. 

6.  What  is  imposed,  either  by  the  will  of  the  priest  or  by  canon, 
is  sometimes  enforced  by  divine  justice  here,  or  is  remitted  in  purgatory. 
(4) 

7.  Just  as  no  one  is  bound  to  repeat  a  confession,  truly  made,  for 
the  same  offenses,  save  in  few  cases;  (8)  And  however  useful  it  might 
be,  nevertheless  neither  priest  nor  Pope  can  demand  that  it  be  repeated, 
(9)  So  one  absolved  is  not  bound  to  repeat  for  the  same  sins  the  outward 
satisfying  penance,  when  once  rightly  performed.     To  command  the 
contrary  is  to  err.     (3,  4) 

10.  Notwithstanding,  he  is  bound  as  long  as  he  lives  to  grieve  within, 
in  conduct  and  disposition,  and  always  to  detest  remitted  sin,  and  not 
to  live  without  fear  concerning  propitiation  of  sins. 

II.  This  penalty,  imposed  on  account  of  sins  repented  and  confessed, 
the  Pope  can  completely  remit  by  means  of  indulgences;  (12)  Whether 
this  has  been  imposed  by  him,  or  by  the  will  of  the  priest,  or  by  canon, 
or  even  is  exacted  by  the  divine  justice;  to  deny  this  is  to  err.  (5) 

13.  But,  although  through  indulgences  every  penalty  in  matters 
determined  is  remitted  which  is  due  for  sins,  so  that  it  is  vindicative 
of  them;  (14)  he  errs,  nevertheless,  who  thinks  that  because  of  this  the 
penalty  is  removed  that  is  healthful  and  preservative,  since  the  Jubilee2 
is  not  ordained  contrary  to  this. 

15.  However  truly  and  entirely  any  one  may  receive  remission  through 
indulgences — he  who  denies  that  this  can  be  done  in  matters  determined 
errs;  (16)  Nevertheless  no  one  ought  to  intermit  works  of  satisfaction 
as  long  as  he  lives,  since  they  are  curative  of  sins  remaining,  preservative 
from  future  sins  and  meritorious. 

17.  Just  as  the  Mosaic  sacraments  are  barren  elements,  neither  remov- 
ing guilt  nor  justifying:  (18)  So  the  Jewish  priests  have  neither  keys 
nor  office  [characterem]  whence  they  can  remit  guilt. 

19.  But  the  Christian  sacraments  produce  the  grace  they  signify, 
and  hence  also  justify  those  who  receive  them. 

1  The  numbers  in  parentheses  at  the  end  of  this  and  other  theses,  indicate  the 
numbers  of  Luther's  theses  intended  to  be  controverted. 

2  The  indulgence  issued  by  Julius  II,  in  1506,  for  the  new  building  of  St.  Peters 
(Magnum  Bullarium,  5:  481  seq.),  and  renewed  by  Leo  X,  in  1515,  for  Germany, 
was  in  forma  Jubilaei:  by  an  ingenious  fiction,  Rome  and  its  shrines  were  brought 
to  those  who  were  unable  to  make  a  pilgrimage  thither. 


404  APPENDIXES 

20.  And  Christian  priests  have  the  true  office  and  keys,  by  which 
they  can  remit  even  guilt:  (21)  not  only  by  approving  and  declaring, 
as  the  priests  of  the  old  law  of  Aaron  did  with  regard  to  leprosy,  (22)  but 
also  ministerially  and  instrumentally,  and  by  orderly  performing  the 
thing  itself  by  means  of  the  sacrament.  (6) 

23.  Nay,  just  as  God  has  keys  of  authority,  Christ  of  excellence,  so 
the  Christian  priest  has  ministerial  keys. 

24.  Whoso  says,  therefore,  that  the  Pope,  or  even  the  least  priest, 
has  no  power  over  guilt  save  in  approving  or  declaring,  errs.  (6) 

25.  Nay,  he  errs  who  does  not  believe  that  the  least  Christian  priest 
has  more  power  in  regard  to  sin  than  the  whole  synagogue  of  the  Jews 
formerly  had. 

26.  Why  does  he  not  err  then,  who  thinks  that  Christ,  so  far  as  he 
has  not  bound  his  power  to  the  sacraments,  (27)  cannot  remit  sins  by 
the  excellence  of  his  key,  and  save  a  man,  apart  from  sacerdotal  confession, 
approbation  or  declaration?  (7) 

28.  Although  contempt,  true  or  inferred,  has  rejected  the  sacrament, 
which  not  seldom  happens  in  late  repentance,  (29)  neither  unexpected 
death  nor  necessity  exempts  from  the  severest  punishment  that  follows. 

30.  Nevertheless,  we  must  not  despair  concerning  these,  since  the 
least  contrition  that  can  take  place  at  the  end  of  life,  (31)  suffices  for  the 
remission  of  sins  and  the  changing  of  the  eternal  penalty  to  a  temporal. 

32.  But  seeing  that,  on  account  of  deficiency  of  time,  the  most  cruel 
punishments  not  infrequently  befall  those  who  have  died  in  such  wise, 
(33)  which  are  quickly  remitted  by  plenary  indulgences,  such  act  foolishly 
as  dissuade  from  buying  confessional  licenses. 

34.  Because  of  violence  to  a  priest,  penalties  are  imposed  on  the 
excommunicate,  incendiaries,  and  incestuous,  not  alone  after  absolution, 
but  sometimes  after  death;  (35)  on  the  one  an  oath  not  to  repeat,  on  the 
other  satisfaction — therefore  he  who  denies  that  this  can  be  done,  errs.  (10) 

36.  Not  by  sleeping  bishops,  but  by  chapters  of  the  [canon]  law, 
a  priest  is  commanded  to  be  discreet  and  pious,  so  that  one  confessed  is 
sent  to  purgatory,  (37)  with  the  penalty  of  exile  willingly  received,  rather 
than  to  hell  as  rejected.  Who  calls  that  "tares"  therefore  errs.  (11) 

38.  Heretics,  schismatics  and  traitors,  are  excommunicated  after 
death,  anathematized  and  exhumed.  (39)  Therefore,  whoever  says  that 
those  about  to  die  pay  all  debts  by  death,  and  are  not  held  by  the  canon 
law,  errs.  (13) 

40.  It  is  erroneous  to  say  that  souls  about  to  be  purified, x  who  depart 
in  grace  and  charity — which  separates  between  the  sons  of  the  kingdom 
and  those  of  perdition,  and  far  more  of  despair — (41)  are  near  despair; 
but  rather  [one  should  say]  they  are  in  firm  hope  of  obtaining  happiness. 
(14,  15) 

42.  He  errs  who  says  that  it  is  not  proved  either  by  reason  or  Scrip- 
ture, that  the  purified1  are  beyond  the  state  of  merit.  (18) 

43.  He  errs  who  adds,  that  it  is  not  proved  how  certain  and  secure 
they  are  of  their  happiness.     Likewise  he  who  says,  (44)  the  souls  about 
to  be  purified l  cannot  be  more  certain  of  their  salvation  than  we,  and  that 
we  are  most  certain.  (19) 

1  Tetzel  appears  to  use  animas  purgandas  and  purgatos  as  equivalent  to  Luther's 
phrase  animas  in  Purgatorio. 


APPENDIXES  405 

45.  He  errs  who  says  that  the  Pope  does  not  mean  by  plenary  remission 
the  remission  of  all  penalties,  but  only  those  imposed  by  himself.  (20) 

46.  To  say  that  the  preachers  of  indulgences  err  when  they  declare 
that  a  man  may  be  relieved  of  all  penalty  by  the  indulgence  of  the  Pope 
and  be  saved,  is  an  error.  (21) 

47.  To  say  that  the  Pope  can  remit  no  penalty  to  souls  in  Purgatory 
which  they  ought  to  remove  in  this  life  according  to  the  canons,  is  an 
error.  (22) 

48.  He  errs  who  says  that  only  the  most  perfect  can  obtain  pardons, 
and  not  also  the  perfect,  the  still  more  perfect,  beginners  and  progressive. 
(49)  Likewise  also  [whoever  says  that]  not  only  the  fully  contrite  but  the 
impenitent  [attritos,  imperfectly  penitent]  and  the  contrite  through  con- 
fession [can  obtain  pardons].  (23) 

50.  He  errs  whoever  says  this  can  happen  to  very  few,  and  not  to 
most  who  do  what  the  Jubilee  requires.  (24) 

51.  It  is  an  error  to  assert  that  the  Pope  has  no  greater  or  more 
\fficacious  power  over  Purgatory,  by  imparting  generally  the  Jubilee 
[AG.  its  benefits]  in  form  of  intercession  (52)  than  such  or  as  great  as  any 
b^hop  or  priest  [plebanus,  lit.  country  priest]  has  especially  in  his  own 
dkcese  and  parish.  (25) 

53.  Even  if  the  Pope  have  no  power  of  the  keys  over  Purgatory,  he 
nevertheless  has  the  authority  to  apply  the  Jubilee  to  them  by  way  of 
intension.  (26) 

54  To  deny  this  power  over  Purgatory  in  the  Pope,  under  the  form 
of  theVey,  is  to  contradict  the  truth  and  to  err.  (26) 

55. ^or  a  soul  to  fly  out,  is  for  it  to  obtain  the  vision  of  God,  which 
can  be  \indered  by  no  interruption,  (56)  therefore  he  errs  who  says  that 
the  sou^annot  fly  out  before  the  coin  can  jingle  in  the  bottom  of  the 
chest.  (A 

57.  It\s  an  error  to  find  gain  and  avarice  in  public  intercession,  and 
not  to  seethe  effect  of  purgation.  (28) 

58.  It  iW  manifest  error  to  doubt  if  all  souls  wish  to  be  redeemed,  or 
being  redee\ed  to  escape  Purgatory.  (29) 

59.  WithWard  to  conjectural  security,  as  far  as  human  weakness 
attains,  it  is  & error  [to  hold]  that  no  one  is  certain  of  obtaining  pardon,1 
even  those  wh\have  done  what  the  Jubilee  requires.  (30) 

60.  It  is  arirror  [to  say]  that  only  a  few,  and  not  most  of  those  who 
fulfil  the  JubileWqUirements7  obtain  pardons.  (31) 

61.  It  is  an  W>r  [^o  say]  that  one  released  through  plenary  pardon, 
according  to  the  W  of  t^e  decretal  [rescripti],  is  not  certain  of  his  salva- 
tion just  as  if  trulVonfessed  and  penitent.  (32) 

62.  It  is  an  eriw  [to  hokl]  that  a  man  is  not  reconciled  to  God  by 
Papal  indulgences  Oy  acquired  by  every  form,  just  as  if  truly  penitent 
and  confessed.  (33)  V 

63.  It  is  an  error*0  teach  men]  not  to  look  for  pardoning  grace, 
except  for  penalties  oi«tisfaction  imposed  by  man,  and  not  also  those 
imposed  by  the  canon  Uivme  justice.  (34) 

64.  It  is  an  error  [tOVj  tnat  jt  js  not  a  Christian  doctrine,  that  those 

iQr,  certain  about  the  eL  of  pardons  (de  veniarum  consecutione) ,  but  the 
use  of  consequar  and  its  cognVTforms  in  the  Qther  theges  intfl  tQ  the  renderillg 
adopted  above. 


406  APPENDIXES 

who  are  about  to  buy  confessional  licenses  or  the  Jubilee  indulgence  for 
their  friends  in  Purgatory  can  do  these  things  without  repentance.  (35) 

65.  It  is  an  error  [to  hold]  that  any  Christian  whatever,  truly  peni- 
tent, has  quickly  and  completely  plenary  remission  of  penalty  and  guilt 
without  indulgences.  (36) 

66.  It  is  an  error  [to  say]  that  any  Christian  whatever,  whether  living 
or  dead,  has  a  share  in  all  benefits,  and  to  the  extent  of  an  authoritative 
remission  of  sins.  (37) 

67.  It  is  an  error  [to  hold]  that  there  is  the  same  share  in  all  benefits 
through  charity  as  through  the  power  of  having  mediation.1  (37) 

68.  Again,  it  is  an  error  [to  say]  that  there  is  the  same  share  in  all 
benefits  for  acquiring  and  increasing  merits,  as  for  giving  satisfaction. 

69.  It  is  an  error  to  say  that  the  remission  of  the  Pope  and  the  share 
{in  all  benefits]  are  not  to  be  despised  only  because  declaration  is  made  of 
the  divine  remission. 

70.  It  is  an  error  [to  say]  that  it  is  very  easy,  only  for  the  most  learned 
theologians,  and  not  also  for  those  moderately  versed,  at  once  to  exak 
the  ample  effect  of  pardons  and  the  necessity  of  true  contrition.  (39) 

71.  He  errs  who  does  not  know  that,  instead  of  those  satisfyng 
penalties  that  contrition  seeks,  Christ's  pardons  impose  compensatory 
penalties,  but  because  they  do  not  remit  those  that  are  medicare, 
'Contrition  has  the  penalties  that  it  loves  continuing  through  the  vhole 
life.  (40) 

72.  Works  of  charity  avail  more  in  obtaining  merit,  but  penary 
pardons  more  in    quickly  making    satisfaction    and    obtaining  total 
remission.     He  errs  who  does  not  know  this,  or  does  not  believfit,  and 
ivho  teaches  the  people  one  and  is  silent  about  the  other.  (41) 

73.  Plenary  indulgences  avail  more  in  making  satisfaction  arl  obtain- 
ing remission  completely,  quickly  and  remarkably,  but  works  rf  charity 
.avail  more  in  obtaining  merit,  grace,  and  chiefly  in  increasing^ory.    He 
errs  who  does  not  think  the  Pope  wishes  the  people  to  be  so  tught.  (41) 

74.  But   since    plenary   indulgence    differs    exceedingl    [secundum 
excedentia  et  excessa]  from  particular  works  of  mercy  (as  they  x'e  commonly 
called) ;  he  is  guilty  of  signal  presumption  and  error  wh  teaches  the 
people  that  the  Pope  wishes  the  purchase  of  pardons  frbe  in  no  way 
compared  with  so-called  works  of  mercy.  (42)  . 

75.  Giving  to  the  poor  and  lending  to  the  needy  i'doing  better  as 
to  the  increase  of  merit;  but  buying  pardons  is  better  > to  pore  speedy 
making  satisfaction.    He  errs  who  teaches  the  people  rfeerwwe  and  leads 
them  astray;  likewise -he  who  thinks  that  to  buy  pflons  is  not  also  a 
work  of  mercy.  (43) 

76.  Although  by  pardons  a  man  may  first  beco*3  fl<eer  from  punish- 
ment, nevertheless,  since  the  work  by  which  theare  bought  becomes 
one  of  charity,  he  who  buys  becomes  better  in  con^ence  of  his  internal 
•devotion.     He  doubly  errs  who  teaches  the  peop  ynerwise-  (44) 

77.  Spiritual  alms  are  preferable  to  corpora*1101,  are  more  commonly 
given.  Whence  if  one  needs  pardon,  and  car;t  aid  tne  poor  without 

'  Applicationem  (lit.  clientship).  The  ius  applic™!8™8.^  right  of  a  client 
to  the  protection  of  his  patron.  The  transferor  °J  tnis  jdea  to  the  doctrine 
of  indulgences  is  obvious.  Elsewhere  in  the  thr1  tne  word  w  rendered  "mter- 
vention"  or  "mediation." 


APPENDIXES  407 

danger  of  want,  he  does  far  better  by  buying  than  by  helping  the  poor, 
as  said  before.    He  who  teaches  the  contrary,  errs.  (44) 

78.  Merit  and  extent  of  merits  are  generally  approved  according  to 
the  importance  of  works  and  the  purpose  of  charity;  therefore  he  deserves 
pardons  more  who  obtains  them  from  necessaries  than  [he  who  obtains 
them]  from  superfluities.    Whence  he  doubly  errs  who  teaches  that  any 
one  sins  in  acquiring  merit  in  this  way.  (46) 

79.  Although  the  buying  of  pardons  has  not  been  commanded,  it 
is  nevertheless  the  wisest  course  for  those  who  need  them.      Whoever 
says  the  former  and  is  silent  about  the  latter,  leads  the  people  astray  and 
errs.  (47) 

80.  What  need  Leo  more  than  others  has  of  prayers  for  himself  can 
only  be  conjectured  [est  divinare].    But  we  are  bound  to  pray  for  Pope 
Leo  by  the  obligation  of  both  human  and  divine  law.  (81)  Aiid  since 
that  is  done  as  a  matter  of  necessity,  he  errs  who  says  that  on  account  of 
it  the  Pope  ought  to  grant  indulgences.  (48) 

82.  Unless  faith,  devotion,  nay  confidence,  are  cherished  with  regard 
to  pardons,  indulgences  amount  to  nothing  and  are  useless.    Whoever 
says  the  contrary  errs  most  seriously.  (49) 

83.  Since  the  sums  exacted  for  pardons  under  Leo  are  very  small  as 
compared  with  his  predecessors,  therefore  he  errs  impiously  who  says 
that  he  is  planning  to  build  the  church  of  St.  Peter's  with  the  flesh,  skin 
and  bones  of  his  own  sheep.  (50) 

84.  Indulgences  are  useful  to  him  who  does  what  lies  in   him,  and 
according  to  the  tenor  of  the  bulls,  however   it   may   happen   that 
railers   [oblatrantes,    lit.  barkers]  err.   (85).    Therefore   it   is   a    most 
abominable  error  to  say  that  confidence   in  salvation  through  letters 
of  pardon  is  vain,  even  if  the  Pope  were  to  put  his  own  soul  in  pawn 
for  them.  (52) 

86.  If  the  least  bishop  can  impose  silence  on  others,  either  while  he 
himself  wishes  to  preach,  or  to  have  some  one  preach  before  him;  (87) 
it  is  a  very  grave  error  to  say  that  the  Pope  is  the  enemy  of  the  cross  if 
he  wishes  to  publish  the  Jubilee  in  a  like  manner.  (53) 

88.  If  the  legends  of  the  saints  may  without  harm  be  read  on  their 
feast  days  at  greater  length  than  the  Gospel,  one  can  continue  to  publish 
pardons  an  equal  or  longer  time  than  the  reading  of  the  Gospel.     To  say 
the  contrary  is  to  err  doubly.  (54) 

89.  It  is  an  error  [to  say]  the  mind  of  the  Pope  is,  that  pardons  should 
be  celebrated  with  single  bells,  processions  and  ceremonies,  the  Gospel 
with  a  hundred  bells,  processions  and  ceremonies.  (55) 

90.  It  is  an  error  [to  say]  that  the  treasury  of  the  Church,  whence  the 
Pope  grants  indulgences,  is  not  sufficiently  named  or  known.  (56) 

91.  It  is  an  error  [to  say]  that  the  treasury  of  Christ  is  not  the  merits 
of  Christ  and  the  saints.  (58) 

92.  It  is  an  error  [to  say]  that  these  work  pardoning  (that  is,  sufficient 
on  the  side  of  God),  quick,  and  complete  satisfaction,  without  the  media- 
tion of  the  Pope.  (58) 

93.  [To  say]  that  the  treasure  of  the  Church  was  the  poor,  in  the  time 
of  St.  Lawrence  is  an  error.  (59) 

94.  [To  say]  that  the  treasure  of  the  Church  is  only  the  keys  of  the 
Church  given  by  the  merit  of  Christ,  is  an  error.  (60) 


408  APPENDIXES 

95.  It  is  an  error  [to  say]  that  the  power  of  the  Pope  alone  suffices 
for  the  remission  of  penalties,  without  intervention  of  the  treasury  of 
the  Church,  that  is,  of  the  merits  of  Christ.  (61) 

96.  The  Gospel,  the  gift  of  healing,  [and]  the  sacraments  of  pardon  are 
alike  called  by  the  name  of  grace;  to  proclaim  the  one  and  neglect  the 
other  is  to  err.  (62) 

97.  It  is  an  error  [to  say]  that  the  indulgences  that  preachers  proclaim 
to  be  the  greatest  graces,  are  truly  such  as  to  promoting  gain.  (67) 

98.  Yea,  [to  teach]  that  the  treasuries  of  indulgences  are  nets  with 
which  they  fish  for  the  riches  of  men,  is  a  most  impious  error.  (66) 

99.  And  since  a  sin  committed  against  the  Mother  of  Christ,  however 
enormous,  is  less  than  if  the  same  were  committed  against  the  Son,  which 
is  remissible  by  the  express  testimony  of  Christ  (100)  therefore,  whoever 
says  that  such  a  sin  cannot  be  remitted  in  the  truly  contrite  by  indul- 
gences, is  mad,  raves  and  errs,  against  the  text  of  the  Gospel  and  Christ 
himself.  (75) 

101.  Moreover,  to  propose  to  the  subcommissaries  and  preachers  of 
pardons  that  if,  by  an  impossibility,  anyone  should  violate  the  ever 
Virgin  Mother  of  God,  they  could  absolve  the  same  by  the  power  of  indul- 
gences— it  is  clearer  than  light  that  the  one  so  proposing  against  the  evi- 
dent truth,  is  moved  by  hatred  and  thirsts  for  the  blood  of  his  brethren. 
(75) 

102.  To  lay  down  also  in  public  propositions,  that  preachers  of  pardons 
(although  never  heard)  overflow  before  the  people  with  excess  of  words 
and  consume  [proterrere,  lit.  frighten  away]  more  time  in  explaining 
pardons  than  in  preaching  the  Gospel,  is  to  sow  falsehoods  heard  from 
others  and  invented  for  truth,  and  he  who  quickly  believes  shows  himself 
thereby  to  be  fickle  and  errs  grievously.  (72,  54) 

103.  In  fine,  to  lay  down  in  public  propositions,  that  preachers  of 
pardons  are  so  far  wanting  through  their  licentious  preaching  as  to  make 
it  no  easy  task  even  for  learned  men  to  secure  respect  for  the  Pope  from 
the  questions  of  acute  laymen,  is,  after  first  bringing   contumely  upon 
the  Pope,  to  flatter   him  and  openly  insinuate  that  all  the  rest   have 
obtained  safely  [portum  possidisse],  and  that  he  alone  makes  trouble,  and 
in  this  to  err  exceedingly.  (81) 

104.  It  belongs  to  grace  formally  to  remit,  effectively  and  chiefly  by 
God,  regularly  (though  insufficiently)  by  a  pure  man,1  satisfactorily  by 
Christ,  instrumentally  by  the  sacraments.    Whoever  therefore  says  the 
Pope  cannot  remit  the  least  venial  [sin]  as  to  guilt,  errs.  (76) 

105.  He  who  denies  that  the  same  power  belongs  to  Peter  and  all 
his  Vicars,  errs.    Whoever  thinks  Peter  has  more  power  over  pardons 
than  Leo  errs  greatly,  yea,  blasphemes.  (77) 

106.  He  errs  who  says  just  as  he  who  adores  the  cross  of  Christ  or  any 
image  whatsoever,  as  a  thing  and  not  as  a  sign,  offers  divine  worship 
[latria  adorat],  likewise  that  the  cross  of  Christ  excels  among  however 
many  others,  as  objects  of  adoration,  and  ought  to  be  venerated  more; 
nevertheless,  he  who  offers  divine  worship  to  other  things,  and  does  not 
equally  adore  that  [cross]  represented  also  in  the  Papal  arms,  is  guilty 
of  idolatry  and  error.  (69) 

1  Homini  puro;  or,  this  may  mean,  by  a  mere  man,  by  man  alone. 


APPENDIXES  409 

SECOND   DISPUTATION  OF  JOHN  TETZEL 

BROTHER  John  Tetzel,  of  the  order  of  Preachers,  Bachelor  of  Sacred 
Theology,  and  inquisitor  of  heretical  pravity,  will  publicly  and  briefly 
defend  and  dispute  the  subscribed  propositions,  at  the  university  of 
Frankfort-on-Oder,  on  a  certain  day  that  will  be  named  at  the  earliest 
possible  time:  whoever  ought  to  be  censured  as  heretic,  schismatic, 
obstinate,  contumacious,  erroneous,  seditious,  ill-expressing,  rash  and 
injurious,  at  the  first  look  will  be  clearly  seen  in  them. 

To  the  praise  of  God  and  the  honor  of  the  Holy 
Apostolic  See,  in  the  year  of  our  salvation,  1517. 

1.  Christians  should  be  taught  that,  since  the  power  of  the  Pope  is 
supreme  in  the  Church  and  was  instituted  by  God  alone,  it  can  be  re- 
strained or  increased  by  no  mere  man,  nor  by  the  whole  world  together, 
but  by  God  only. 

2.  Christians  should  be  taught  that  they  are  bound  to  render  simple 
obedience  to  the  Pope,  who  holds  them  all  in  his  immediate  jurisdiction, 
in  respect  to  those  things  that  pertain  to  the  Christian  religion  and  to 
his  chair,  if  they  are  consonant  with  divine  and  natural  law. 

3.  Christians  should  be  taught  that  the  Pope,  by  authority  of  his 
jurisdiction,  is  superior  to  the  entire  Catholic  Church  and  its  councils, 
and  that  they  should  humbly  obey  his  statutes. 

4.  Christians  should  be  taught  that  the  Pope  has  the  sole  [power]  of 
deciding  those  things  that  are  of  faith,  and  that  he  and  no  other  may 
interpret  the  sense  of  Holy  Scripture  as  to  its  meaning,  and  that  he  has 
[the  power]  to  approve  or  disapprove  all  the  words  or  works  of  others. 

5.  Christians  should  be  taught  that  the  judgment  of  the  Pope,  in 
those  matters  that  are  of  faith  and  necessary  to  man's  salvation,  cannot 
err  in  the  least. 

6.  Christians  should  be  taught  that  even  if  the  Pope  should  err  in 
faith,  concerning  the  things  that  are  of  faith,  by  holding  a  bad  opinion, 
he  will  not  err  concerning  those  things  that  are  of  faith  when  he  pro- 
nounces judgment  upon  them.1 

7.  Christians  should  be  taught  that  the  decisions  of  the  Pope,  which 
he  publishes  as  to  matters  that  are  of  faith,  ought  to  have  more  weight 
in  a  cause  than  the  decisions  of  any  number  of  wise  men  regarding  the 
doctrines  [ppinionibus]  of  the  Scriptures. 

8.  Christians  should  be  taught  that  the  Pope  deserves  always  and 
humbly  to  be  honored  by  them,  and  not  to  be  injured. 

9.  Christians  should  be  taught  that  those  who  derogate  from  the 
honor  and  authority  of  the  Pope,  incur  the  penalty  of  the  curse  and  the 
crime  of  treason  [laesae  majestatis]. 

1  That  is,  the  Pope  may  be  a  heretic  privately,  and  as  to  his  personal  beliefs, 
yet  in  his  official  action  as  head  of  the  Church  he  will  be  preserved  by  the  Holy 
Spirit  from  error.  This  thesis  anticipates  with  remarkable  accuracy  the  treatment 
by  modern  theologians,  as  Hefele,  of  the  case  of  Pope  Honorius,  who  in  680  was 
anathematized  by  the  Sixth  Ecumenical  Council  for  heretical  views  expressed 
in  a  letter  to  Sergius,  Patriarch  of  Constantinople  (Mansi,  11:  631;  Hefele,  ffw- 
tory  of  Councils,  Eng.  tr.,  5:  167).  These  views,  not  being  spoken  ex  cathedra,  as 
pastor  and  teacher  of  all  Christians,  are  not  regarded  by  Roman  theologians  as 
coming  within  the  scope  of  the  Vatican  definition  of  infallibility  (Schaff,  Creeds 
of  Christendom,  2:  270). 


410  APPENDIXES 

10.  Christians  should  be  taught  that  those  who  expose  the  Pope  to 
jeers  and  slanders,  are  marked  with  the  stain  of  heresy  and  shut  out  from 
hope  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven. 

11.  Christians  should  be  taught  that  those  who  dishonor  the  Pope 
are  punished  with  temporal  disgrace,  and  also  with  the  worst  death  and 
scandalous  disorder. 

12.  Christians  should  be  taught  that  the  keys  of  the  Church  do  not 
belong  to  the  universal  church,  as  the  assembly  of  all  believers  is  called, 
but  to  Peter  and  the  Pope,  and  have  been  bestowed  on  all  their  successors 
and  on  all  prelates  to  come,  through  derivation  from  them. 

13.  Christians  should  be  taught  that  ?  general  council  cannot  give 
plenary  indulgence,  nor  other  prelates  of  the  Church,  together  or  singly, 
but  the  Pope  alone,  who  is  the  bridegroom  of  the  Church  universal. 

14.  Christians  should  be  taught  *that  no  mortals  can  determine  the 
truth  and  faith  concerning  the  obtaining  of  indulgences — no,  not  even 
a  general  council,  but  the  Pope  alone,  who  has  [the  power]  to   render 
final  judgment  concerning  catholic  truth. 

15.  Christians  should  be  taught  that  catholic  truth  is  called  universal 
truth,  and  that  it  ought  to  be  believed  by  Christ's  faithful  ones,  and  that 
it  contains  nothing  either  of  falsehood  or  of  iniquity. 

16.  Christians  should  be  taught  that  the  Church  holds  many  things 
as  catholic  truths,  which  are  by  no  means  contained  in  the  same  form  of 
words  in  the  canon  of  Holy  Scripture  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments. 

17.  Christians  should  be  taught  that  the  Church  holds  many  things 
as  catholic  truths,  which  nevertheless  are  not  laid  down  as  such  either 
in  the  biblical  canon  or  by  earlier  teachers. 

18.  Christians   should   be   taught   that   all    observances   regarding 
matters  of  faith,  defined  by  the  decision  of  the  Apostolic  See,  are  to  be 
reckoned  among  catholic  truths,  although  not  found  to  be  contained  in 
the  canon  of  Holy  Scripture. 

19.  Christians  should  be  taught  that  those  things  that  teachers 
approved  by  the  Church  have  positively  handed  down  concerning  the 
holding  of  the  faith  and  the  confuting  of  heretics,  although  they  are  not 
expressly  contained  in  the  canon   of   Holy   Scripture — their    writings 
of   this   character   are   nevertheless   to   be   reckoned   among    catholic 
truths. 

20.  Christians  should  be  taught  that  although  certain  truths  may  not 
be  absolutely  catholic,  they  none  the  less  smack  of  catholic  truth.1 

21.  Christians  should  be  taught  that  all  those  smack  of  heresy,  who 
say  that  no  use  of  the  cross  of  Christ  should  be  made  in  the  churches. 

22.  Christians  should  be  taught  that  those  who  cherish  deliberate 
doubts  concerning  the  faith  should  be  most  clearly  condemned  as  heretics. 

23.  Christians  should  be  taught  that  those  who  are  ordained  to  holy 
orders  for  money  may  most  clearly  be  called  heretics. 

24.  Christians  should  be  taught  that  all  who  interpret  the  Holy 
Scripture  bacUy,  and  not  as  the  sense  of  the  Holy  Spirit  demands,  by 
whom  it  has  been  written,  may  most  justly  be  called  heretics. 

25.  Christians  should  be  taught  that  he  must  properly  be  called  a 

1  The  Roman  Church  still  maintains  this  distinction  between  dogma,  a  doc- 
trine that  is  of  faith  and  must  therefore  be  believed  by  all,  and  a  pious  opinion 
that  may  be  believed  by  any  and  should  be  treated  with  respect  by  all. 


APPENDIXES  411 

heretic,  who  for  the  sake  of  temporal  glory  either  originates  or  follows 
false  and  new  doctrines. 

26.  Christians  should  be  taught  that  all  those  are  most  justly  called 
heretics  who  attempt  to  take  away  the  privilege  of  the  Roman  Church, 
delivered  by  the  highest  head  of  all  Churches. 

27.  Christians  should  be  taught  that,  after  the  example  of  the  blessed 
Ambrose,  they  ought  to  follow  in  all  things  as  their  master  the  Holy 
Roman  Church,  and  not  their  own  imaginings. 

28.  Christians  should  be  taught  that  whosoever  persistently  defends 
his  own  perverse  and  depraved  doctrine,  against  the  rule  of  catholic 
truth,  should  be  condemned  as  a  heretic  and  be  proclaimed  such  by  all. 

29.  Christians  should  be  taught  that  those  who  teach  anything  a* 
certain,  which  cannot  be  validly  proved  either  by  reason  or  by  authority, 
must  be  condemned  as  rash. 

30.  Christians  should  be  taught  that  those  who  assert  at  any  time 
what  things  are  false,  are  to  be  held  as  in  error.1 

31.  Christians  should  be  taught  that  those  who  draw  away  any  one 
of  the  faithful,  or  some  notable  person,  should  be  condemned  as  injurious. 

32.  Christians  should  be  taught  that  those  who  write  propositions 
that  furnish  occasion  of  disaster  to  those  who  hear,  whatever  qualifica- 
tion may  be  added,  are  truly  to  be  held,  as  if  they  published  them 
absolutely  and  without  qualification,  to  be  causes  of  offence,  sayers  of 
evil,  and  offenders  of  pious  ears,  in-so-far  as  they  seem  to  urge  heretical 
propositions. 

33.  Christians  should  be  taught  that  assertions  of  teachers  that 
bring  in  schism  among  the  people — as  is  that  proposition:    One  should 
not  obey  a  bad  prelate  or  prince,  or,  One  should  not  believe  the  Pope  and 
his  bulls — are  by  all  means  seditious. 

34.  Christians  should  be  taught  that  all  who  originate  false  doctrines, 
and  defend  them  persistently,  should  properly  be  condemned  as  heretics. 

35.  Christians  should  be  taught  that  all  who,  in  contempt  of  the  divine 
law,  are  either  inventors  of  persistent  error  or  followers  of  another,  who 
would  rather  be  opponents  of  catholic  truth  than  its  subjects,  should 
certainly  be  condemned  as  heretics. 

36.  Christians  should  be  taught  that  all  defenders  of  others'  errors, 
err  not  alone  as  to  that,  but  also  make  ready  for  others'  stumbling-blocks 
of  error,  and  show  that  they  should  not  only  be  held  to  be  heretics  but 
even  arch-heretics. 

37.  Christians  should  be  taught  that  those  who  originate  new  doc- 
trines contrary  to  catholic  truth,  which  they  may  be  pertinacious  to 
hold,  and  because  of  them  depart  from  the  common  life,  from  either 
fickleness  or  perversity,  because  this  proceeds  from  pride,  which  properly 
is  the  love  of  superiority, — even  if  they  are  not  influenced  by  any  desire 
of  temporal  advantage,  they  are  nevertheless  without  doubt  to  be  held 
as  heretics. 

38.  Christians  should  be  taught  that  those  who  adhere  to  the  doctrines 
of  scholars  [Magistrorum],  contrary  to  catholic  truth,  err  obstinately,  and 
sin  in  erring,  and  thereby  come  to  be  condemned  as  heretics. 

39.  Christians  should  be  taught  that  those  who  deny  any  catholic- 
truth  whatsoever,  which  is  published  as  catholic  among  all  the  faithful 

1  Because  only  the  Pope  had  the  right  (according  to  Tetzel)  to  do  this. 


412  APPENDIXES 

with  whom  they  associate,  and  is  publicly  proclaimed  by  preachers  of 
the  word  of  God,  are  said  to  be  obstinate  in  their  error. 

40.  Christians  should  be  taught  that  those  who  deny  the  assertions 
which  they  know  to  be  contained  in  Holy  Scripture  or  in  the  decision  of 
the  Church,  must  be  condemned  as  obstinate  in  their  heresy. 

41.  Christians  should  be  taught  that  those  who  do  not  correct  or 
amend  their  error,  whenever  it  has  been  shown  them  in  a  lawful  manner 
that  their  error  opposes  catholic  truth,  must  be  condemned  as  contu- 
macious in  their  heresy. 

42.  Christians  should  be  taught  that  they  must  be  condemned  as 
obstinate  in  their  error,  who,  erring  against  the  catholic  faith  and  the 
decision  of  the  Church,  proudly  refuse  to  submit  themselves  to  the  correc- 
tion and  amendment  of  him  to  whom  the  duty  belongs. 

43.  Christians  should  be  taught  that  those  who  have  been  reproved 
for  some  plain  error  against  the  faith,  and  refuse  to  be  informed  concern- 
ing the  truth,  are  in  error  and  should  be  proclaimed  as  obstinate  in  this 
sort  of  heresy. 

44.  Christians  should  be  taught  that  those  who  protest  in  words,  deeds 
or  writings  that  they  are  not  at  all  willing  to  revoke  their  heretical  asser- 
tions, even  if  those  whose  duty  it  is  should  rain  or  hail  excommunications 
against  such  opinions,  are  to  be  held  as  obstinate  heretics,  and  are  to  be 
shunned  by  all. 

45.  Christians  should  be  taught  that  those  who  invent  and  defend 
new  errors  in  defence  of  heretical  prayity,  in  as  far  as  they  are  not  ready 
to  be  corrected  and  to  seek  truth  with  careful  solicitude,  are  certainly 
to  be  held  as  obstinate  in  their  heresies. 

46.  Christians  should  be  taught  that  those  beneath  the  chief  Pontiff, 
if  they  formally  define  a  certain  assertion  as  heretical  or  decide  that  it 
must  be  held,  and  impose  it  upon  others  because  they  deem  it  to  be  catho- 
lic,— are  to  be  held  and  proclaimed  as  obstinate  heretics,  one  and  all 
who  agree  with  such  decisions  of  theirs. 

47.  Christians  should  be  taught  that  they  obstinately  err,  who  have 
the  power  to  resist  heretical  prayity,  and  yet  do  not  resist  it,  and  that  by 
this  course  they  themselves  befriend  the  errors  of  heresy.1 

48.  Christians  should  be  taught  that  those  who  defend  the  error  of 
heretics  and  effect  this  by  their  own  power,  [should  beware]  lest  they  come 
into  the  hands  of  the  judge  to  be  tried,  as  excommunicates,  and  if  they 
do  not  make  satisfaction  within  a  year,  be  held  by  their  own  law  as  in- 
famous, who  are  also,  according  to  the  chapters  of  the  law,  terribly 
punished  with  many  penalties,  to  the  terror  of  all  men. 

49.  Christians  should  be  taught  not  to  be  influenced,  in  their  faith 
about  the  authority  of  the  Pope  and  his  indulgences,  by  the  boldness  of 
obstinate  heretics,  for  our  pious  Lord  and  God  would  not  have  permitted 
heretics  to  arise,  except  that  Truth  might  appear  more  clear  to  faith 
by  their  arising,  and  we  might  by  this  means  escape  from  irrational 
infancy;  but  they  should  rather  continue  credulous  regarding  the  truth 
preached  concerning  the  parts  of  penance  and  indulgences;  through  which 
constancy  on  their  part  in  the  aforesaid  faith,  the  approbation  of  them  by 
God  may  be  made  clear  and  evident  to  the  whole  world. 

1  This  thesis  and  the  one  following  are  evidently  aimed  at  the  Elector  Fred- 
erick, of  Saxony. 


APPENDIXES  413 

50.  And  so  those  who  wish  as  much  as  they  can  to  fill  letters  and  books 
concerning  the  parts  of  penance  (confession  of  the  mouth  and  satisfaction 
by  works,  brought  in  and  instituted  by  God  and  the  Gospel,  and  promul- 
gated by  Apostles,  and  approved  and  followed  by  the  whole  Church, 
and  yet  impugned  by  [my] l  adversary  unrighteously  and  irreligiously  in 
his  common  speech,  in  so  many  articles),  and  concerning  plenary  indul- 
gence and  the  power  of  the  chief  Roman  Pontiff  with  regard  to  the  same, 
and  [wish]  with  a  certain  unrestrainable  cheek  [fronte]  to  preach  publicly 
or  dispute  concerning  them,  to  win  favor  for  their  writings,  scatter  them 
among  the  people  and  make  them  common  throughout  the  world,  or  to 
speak  impudently  and  by  way  of  contempt  concerning  these  very  things, 
in  corners  or  in  part  before  men, — let  them  fear  for  themselves  lest 
they  fall  upon  the  foregoing  propositions,  and  through  this  expose  them- 
selves and  others  to  the  peril  of  damnation  and  of  severe  temporal  dis- 
order. For  a  beast  that  has  touched  the  mountain  shall  be  stoned. 


Ill 

APPEAL  OF  BROTHER  MARTIN  LUTHER  TO  A   COUNCIL2 

In  the  name  of  the  Lord,  Amen.  In  the  1518th  year  from  .the  birth  of 
the  same  [Lord],  in  the  sixth  indiction,3  on  Sunday,  November  28ih,  in  the 
sixth  year  of  the  pontificate  of  our  most  holy  father  and  lord  in  Christ,  Leo  X., 
by  divine  providence  Pope;  in  the  presence  of  the  public  notary  and  the  sub- 
scribed witnesses,  summoned  and  called  for  this  special  purpose,  master 
[do-minus]  Martin  Luther,  orda,ined  reverend  Father,  an  Augustinian  of 
Wittenberg,  Doctor 4  of  sacred  theology,  and  there  ordinary  lecturer  on  the- 
ology, first  and  chiefly  for  himself,  but  also  beyond  revocation  by  any  of  his 
deputies  hereafter  appointed  by  him,  having  and  holding  in  his  hands  a 
certain  schedule  of  citation  and  appeal,  with  the  design  and  purpose  of  ad- 
dressing, calling  and  entreating  an  appeal*  (saying,  narrating,  entreating 
and  appealing  in  regard  to  certain  legal  cases  in  the  same  schedule  contained 
and  embodied)  to  a  council,  the  next  and  immediately  to  be  [held],  assembled 
legally  and  in  the  Holy  Spirit,  to  the  entire  exclusion  indeed  of  other  assem- 
blies, factions  and  private  synods;  affirming  and  setting  forth  other  facts, 
such  as  are  more  fully  contained,  included  and  described  in  the  aforesaid 
schedule  of  appeal,  whose  contents  are  appended  and  are  as  follows: 

1  The  pronoun  is  evidently  required,  for  the  reference  can  be  to  nobody  but 
Luther. 

*  The  original  Latin  text  is  in  Loscher,  2:  505  seq.  and  LOL,  28:  435  seq.  A 
German  version  is  given  in  Walch,  15:  656  seq.  The  differences  of  text  are 
trifling. 

3  An  indiction  is  a  period  of  fifteen  years,  a  method  of  reckoning  supposed  to 
have  been  instituted  for  fiscal  purposes  by  Constantine,  in  the  year  313.  In- 
dictions  carried  back  will  be  found  to  vary  three  years  from  the  Christian  era, 
hence  the  rule :  add  three  to  the  calendar  year,  divide  by  fifteen,  and  the  remainder 
is  the  year  of  the  indiction.  If  there  is  no  remainder,  it  is  the  fifteenth  year.  "Sixth 
indiction"  above  is  an  abbreviated  phrase  for  "sixth  year  of  the  indiction." 

1  Magister  in  the  Latin,  which  was  the  equivalent  of  the  Doctor's  degree  now, 
and  both  are  equivalent  to  the  "Professor"  of  the  first  appeal. 

6  Apostolus.  In  Roman  law  an  apostolus  is  a  notice  sent  to  a  higher  tribunal, 
and  its  sense  in  the  canon  law  appears  to  be  the  same.  The  German  has  hero 
deswegen  Verweinungsbriefe,  "for  the  sake  of  a  certificate  of  appeal." 


414  APPENDIXES 

SINCE  the  remedy  of  appeal  was  devised  by  legislators  for  the  assist- 
ance and  relief  of  the  oppressed,  and  not  only  from  things  inflicted  but 
also  from  those  to  be  inflicted,  the  law  allows  those  menaced  with  wrongs 
and  injuries  to  appeal,  to  the  end  that  the  inferior  cannot  decide  concern- 
ing the  right  of  appeal  to  the  superior. *  But  since  it  is  a  sufficiently 
acknowledged  fact  that  a  most  holy  council,  legally  assembled  in  the  Holy 
Spirit,  representing  the  Holy  Catholic  Church,  in  cases  concerning  the 
faith  is  above  the  Pope,  it  follows  that  the  Pope  cannot  in  such  cases 
decide  that  there  shall  be  no  appeal  from  him  to  a  council.  So  if  he  does 
that  which  in  no  way  pertains  to  his  functions,  the  appeal  itself  is  a  sort 
of  legal  defense  that  is  in  accordance  with  divine,  natural  and  every 
human  law,  and  cannot  be  withdrawn  by  a  ruler. 

Therefore  I,  brother  Martin  Luther,  of  the  order  of  friars  of  St. 
Augustine,  of  Wittenberg,  also  ordinary  lecturer  there  on  the  same  sub- 
ject, first  and  chiefly  for  myself,  come  before  you,  the  public  notary,  as 
a  man  of  known  and  legal  standing,  and  the  witnesses  here  present,  with 
the  motive  and  intention  of  petitioning,  appealing,  and  seeking  and  receiv- 
ing a  notice  of  appeal  [apostolus];  nevertheless,  stating  in  advance  with 
solemn  protest  that  I  purpose  to  say  nothing  against  the  one  Holy  Catholic 
and  Apostolic  Church,  which  I  have  no  doubt  is  mistress  of  the  whole 
world  and  holds  the  pre-eminence;  nor  against  the  authority  of  the  holy 
Apostolic  See,  ,and  the  power  of  our  most  venerable  and  wise  Lord,  the 
Pope.  Nevertheless,  if  anything  shall  be  said  less  correctly  and  without 
becoming  reverence — perchance  on  account  of  the  uncertainty  [lubrico, 
lit.  "  slipperiness "]  of  the  tongue,  but  more  likely  by  reason  of  irritation 
of  enemies — I  am  very  ready  to  correct  that. 

He  who  acts  as  God's  vicar  on  earth  and  whom  we  call  Pope,  since 
he  is  a  man  like  us,  chosen  from  among  men,  and  is  himself  (as  the  Apostle 
says)  " compassed  with  infirmity"  [Heb.  5  :  2],  he  may  err,  sin,  lie,  become 
empty.  A.nd  he  is  not  free  from  that  general  word  of  prophecy:  "Every 
man  is  a  liar."2  Nor  indeed  was  St.  Peter,  the  first  and  most  holy  of 
all  the  pontiffs,  exempt  from  this  infirmity,  but  rather  with  blameworthy 
dissimulation  he  opposed  the  truth  of  the  Gospel;  so  that  with  a  stern  but 
most  holy  rebuke  from  the  apostle  Paul  his  work  had  to  be  corrected,  as 
is  written  in  Galatians  ii.  And  with  this  most  noble  example  shown  to 
the  Church  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  left  in  the  most  sacred  Scriptures,  we 
who  believe  in  Christ  are  taught  and  established.  If  any  supreme  pon- 
tiff falls  on  account  of  infirmity,  the  same  as  or  like  Peter's,  and  teaches 
or  decrees  anything  that  may  oppose  divine  commands,  not  only  should 
he  not  be  obeyed,  but  also  with  the  apostle  Paul  one  can,  nay  should, 
resist  him  to  his  face;  just  as  the  infirmity  of  the  head  is  relieved  by  the 
lower  members,  with  the  loyal  care  of  the  whole  body.  In  the  present 
and  perpetual  memory  of  this  example  it  has  happened — not  without  the 
special  purpose  of  God,  as  may  plainly  be  perceived — that  not  only  St. 
Peter,  but  also  his  salutary  censurer  Paul,  equally  and  in  like  manner 
were  patrons  and  rulers  of  the  Holy  Roman  Church.  So  that  indeed 
we  are  continually  instructed,  not  only  by  their  letters,  but  also  by  the 

1  This  is  a  somewhat  free  rendering  of  adeo  quod  inferior  de  non  appellando  ad 
superiorem  statuere  non  possit,  el  manus  superiorem  claudere,  but  the  following 
sentence  shows  that  this  is  the  sense  intended. 

2  The  reference  can  only  be  to  Ps.  116:  11,  "I  said  in  my  haste,  All  men  are 
liars" — or,  "all  men  are  a  lie,"  as  the  Revised  Version  has  it. 


APPENDIXES  415 

substantial  memorial  of  this  very  necessary  and  most  wholesome  example, 
as  well  the  heads  themselves  as  we,  the  members.  But,  if  furnished  with 
any  power  of  the  mighty,  the  Pope  shall  prevail  to  so  great  an  extent 
that  one  cannot  resist  him,  one  means  certainly  remains,  namely,  that 
aforesaid  remedy  of  appeal,  by  which  the  oppressed  are  relieved. 

Therefore  I  also,  brother  Martin  Luther  aforesaid,  having  recourse 
to  the  manner  and  intention  already  mentioned,  affirm  and  declare  that 
in  our  land  of  Saxony  in  former  days,  indulgences  were  proclaimed  most 
indiscreetly  by  certain  apostolic  commissioners  (as  they  claimed).  So 
that,  in  order  to  suck  up  the  money  of  the  people,  they  began  to  preach 
certain  absurd,  heretical  and  blasphemous  things,  resulting  in  misleading 
the  souls  of  believers  and  in  supreme  mockery  of  the  power  of  the  Church, 
especially  with  regard  to  the  power  of  the  Pope  over  Purgatory  (as  con- 
tained in  their  little  book  called  "A  brief  appointment").1  Now  it 
is  certain  from  the  Canon  Abusionibus  that  the  Pope  does  not  have  any 
power  at  all  over  Purgatory.  Again,  by  the  universal  opinion  of  the  whole 
Church,  and  the  general  consent  of  all  learned  men,  indulgences  are  noth- 
ing but  remissions  of  a  penance  [satisfactionis  poenitentialis]  imposed  by 
one's  [ecclesiastical]  judge.  As  is  clear  from  the  text  of  the  Canon  Quod 
autem,  the  penance  imposed  by  an  ecclesiastical  judge  may  not  be  any- 
thing other  than  works  of  fasting,  prayer,  alms,  etc.,  and  so  it  cannot  be 
remitted  by  the  keys  of  the  Church,  because  it  was  not  imposed  by  them. 
Further,  it  is  certain  from  paragraph  XXXV,  of  Canon  Qualis,  that  in 
Purgatory  not  only  punishment  but  also  guilt  is  remitted.2  But  the 
Church  cannot  remit  guilt,  just  as  also  it  cannot  bestow  grace. 

When  I  relied  on  these  authorities,  because  I  was  about  to  oppose  their 
vile  and  absurd  doctrines  after  the  manner  of  a  disputation,  mad  with 
the  love  of  gain  they  first  began  in  public  address  to  the  people  to  declare 
with  most  shameless  boldness  that  I  was  a  heretic;  then,  through  a 
certain  master  Marius  of  Perusium,  fiscal  procurator,  to  accuse  me  to 
our  most  venerable  lord,  Leo  X,  as  suspected  of  heresy.  At  length  pro- 
curing through  the  influence  of  the  same  man  a  commission  for  citing  me 
to  the  presence  of  the  most  reverend  lords  and  fathers,  Jerome  of  Genu- 
tium,  Bishop  of  Asculani,  hearer  of  causes  in  camera,  and  Sylvester 
Prierias,  master  of  the  palace,  they  brought  it  to  pass  that  I  was  cited 
to  the  City  [of  Rome]  to  be  examined  in  person. 

I  could  not  accomplish  so  long  a  journey  from  Wittenberg,  free  from 
plots,  nor  could  I  remain  at  Rome  safely,  and  I  was  weak  and  frail  in 
body.  Also  the  aforesaid  judges  were  suspected  by  me  for  many  reasons; 
especially  because  the  reverend  father  Sylvester  has  been  my  opponent, 
and  had  already  published  a  treatise  against  me,  and  he  was  also  less 
learned  hi  sacred  letters  than  that  case  demanded.  Master  Jerome, 
moreover,  was  more  learned  in  the  law  than  in  theology,  and  it  was  justly 
feared  that  he  was  about  to  assent  to  the  Sylvestrine  theology,  and  to 
treat  this  case  beyond  the  manner  of  his  profession.  Therefore  I  urged, 
through  the  most  illustrious  prince,  Lord  Frederick,  Duke  of  Saxony, 

i  The  text  reads  summaria  institutio,  but  it  evidently  should  be  instructio,  and 
the  German  has,  correctly,  summarische  Instruction.  The  document  in  question 
is  given  in  German  by  Walch,  15:  302  seq.  The  Latin  original  is  given  in  Gerdsii, 
Historia  Reformationis,  I,  ap.  83. 

*  In  the  first  appeal  the  doctrine  of  indulgences  is  discussed  more  fully,  and  in 
a  tone  of  greater  boldness. 


416  APPENDIXES 

High  Marshal  of  the  Holy  Roman  Empire,  Landgrave  of  Thuringia, 
Marquis  of  Misnia,  that  the  case  be  committed  to  persons  who  are  not 
suspected,  but  are  honorable  and  good  men. 

Then  they,  practised  in  a  certain  gross  and  silly  cunning,  influenced 
the  most  holy  Lord  Leo,  so  that  the  case  was  transferred  to  themselves, 
that  is,  to  the  person  of  the  most  reverend  master  Thomas,  Cardinal  of 
St.  Sixtus,  then  in  Germany  as  the  legate  of  the  Apostolic  See.  He  was 
of  the  order  of  preachers  [Dominicans],  and  of  the  Thomist  faction,  hence 
a  chief  opponent,  and  would  be  expected  easily  to  proclaim  himself 
against  me  and  for  them.  Or,  what  amounts  to  the  same  thing,  I  would 
surely  be  alarmed  at  the  sight  of  this  judge  and  refuse  to  appear,  thereby 
being  guilty  of  contumacy.  Nevertheless,  relying  on  God's  truth,  I 
came  to  Augsburg  with  much  labor  and  amid  many  perils,  and  was  indeed 
kindly  received  by  the  aforesaid  most  reverend.  Here  my  protest  and 
pledge  were  neglected,  in  which  I  had  offered  to  answer  either  in  public 
or  in  private,  before  a  notary  and  witnesses,1  and  finally  before  four 
distinguished  men  present,  of  the  rank  of  imperial  councillors.  Like- 
wise I  submitted  myself  and  my  words  to  the  Holy  Apostolic  See,  and  to 
the  judgment  of  four  noted  universities:  Basel,  Freiburg,  Louvain,  lastly 
also  to  that  most  noble  parent  of  studies,  [or  universities,  studiorum]  Paris. 
[After  all  this]  he  simply  urged  me  to  retract,  nor  was  he  willing  to  show 
me  my  errors,  nor  by  what  reasons  or  authorities  the  error  could  be  recog- 
nized by  me.  Naturally  too  much  influenced  by  the  brothers  of  his  party, 
and  assuming  an  aspect  of  harshness,  in  fearful  and  very  cruel  threats 
he  menaced  me  with  the  power  of  a  certain  Apostolic  Brief,  unless  I 
should  retract  with  abject  entreaties,  and  with  promises  to  be  taught, 
and  with  requests  for  information.  Then  he  commanded  that  I  should 
not  return  before  his  face.2 

Vexed  with  these  troubles,  I  then  appealed  from  his  unjust  and  violent 
audacity  and  pretended  commission,  to  pur  most  holy  lord,  Leo  X,  better 
informed,  as  is  more  fully  contained  in  the  schedule  of  that  appeal.3 
Now  although  that  appeal  (as  I  have  said)  has  been  lightly  esteemed,  I 
yet  desire  up  to  this  day  nothing  except  that  my  error  be  shown  me; 
whoever  can  establish  it.  In  regard  to  this  I  duly  affirm  a  second  time 
that  I  am  quite  ready  to  retract  if  I  shall  be  shown  that  I  have  said  any- 
thing wrong.  Finally,  I  submitted  my  whole  contention  to  the  supreme 
pontiff,  so  that  I  have  nothing  further  to  do  in  these  things  than  to  await 
judgment,  and  this  I  am  awating  until  now. 

Nevertheless,  as  I  hear,  the  same  most  reverend  master  Thomas, 
Cardinal  of  St.  Sixtus,  writes  to  the  most  illustrious  prince,  Lord  Fred- 
erick,4 that  proceedings  are  taken  against  me  in  the  Roman  Curia,  and 
that  by  the  authority  of  our  same  most  holy  lord  [the  Pope],  the  pre- 

*  This  protest  is  document  200  in  the  Walch  collection  (15:  568  seq.),  and  may 
be  found  in  Latin  in  LOL,  28:  371  seq. 

*  The  Acta  Augustana,  giving  a  full  account  of  the  three  hearings  before  Cajetan, 
from  Luther's  point  of  view,  are  documents  224-227  of  the  Walch  collection 
(15:  612  seq.).    The  originals  may  be  found  in  Loscher  11:  544  seq.,  and  LOL, 
28:  349  seq. 

*  This  appeal  from  Cajetan  to  the  Pope,  dated  October  16,  is  given  in  the  orig- 
inal form  by  Loscher,  11:  484  seq.,  and  LOL,  28:  397  seq.    A  German  version  is 
in  the  Walch  collection,  doc.  212,  15:  594  seq. 

«  This  letter  is  document  237  in  the  Walch  collection  (15:  634  seq.),  and  may  be 
found  in  the  Latin  original  in  Loscher,  11:  527,  and  LOL,  28:  405  aeq. 


APPENDIXES  417 

tended  judges  carry  out  the  case  to  my  condemnation,  paying  no  attention 
to  my  faithful  and  superabounding  obedience,  with  how  great  difficulty 
I  appeared  at  Augsburg;  nor  caring  for  my  most  honest  offer,  in  which  I 
presented  myself  for  a  public  or  private  reply;  finally  despising  one  of 
Christ's  sheep,  who  humbly  asked  to  be  taught  the  truth  and  led  back 
from  error.  Indeed,  without  a  hearing  or  a  reason  given,  with  pure 
tyranny  and  plenitude  of  power,  they  simply  urged  me  to  recall  the  opinion 
which  I  believe  from  my  conscience  to  be  most  true,  and  desire  to  mislead 
me  into  denying  the  faith  of  Christ  and  the  true  understanding  of  a  most 
plain  Scripture  (as  much  as  my  conscience  understands  it).  The  power 
of  the  Pope  is  not  against  nor  above,  but  for  and  under,  the  majesty  of 
Scripture  and  truth;  nor  has  the  Pope  received  power  to  destroy  the  sheep, 
to  cast  them  into  the  jaws  of  wolves,  but  to  recall  them  to  the  truth, 
as  befits  a  pastor  and  bishop,  the  Vicar  of  Christ.  For  this  reason  I 
feel  that  I  am  grieved  and  burdened,  since  I  see  that  from  such  violence 
it  will  come  to  pass  that  no  one  may  dare  to  confess  even  Christ  himself, 
nor  to  preach  the  sacred  Scriptures  in  his  own  church;  and  so  that  I 
also  shall  be  forcibly  thrust  forth  from  a  true,  rational  and  Christian 
faith  and  understanding  to  empty  and  lying  opinions  of  men,  and  driven 
to  fables  that  mislead  Christian  people. 

Therefore,  from  the  aforesaid,  our  most  holy  lord  Leo,  not  correctly 
advised,  and  above  the  pretended  words,  commission  and  judges,  and 
their  citation  and  process,  and  all  that  has  followed  or  will  follow  thence, 
and  from  any  whatsoever  of  them;  and  from  whatever  excommunications, 
suspension  and  sentences  of  interdict,  condemnations,  punishments  and 
fines;  and  from  whatever  other  denunciations  and  declarations  (as  they 
pretend)  of  heresy  and  apostasy,  through  them  or  one  of  them  attempted, 
done  and  designed,  or  to  be  attempted,  done  or  designed;  and  from  the 
nullification  of  these  things  as  it  were  by  evil  and  unjust  men  who  are 
entirely  tyrannical  and  violent  (their  honor  and  reverence  always  except- 
ed) ;  also  from  whatever  future  troubles  that  can  come  to  me  from  this, 
as  well  for  myself  as  for  all  and  each  of  my  adherents  and  those  wishing 
to  be  my  adherents; — to  the  Council  to  meet  legally  and  in  a  safe  place, 
to  which  I  or  an  advocate  delegated  by  me  can  be  free  to  go,  and  to  him 
or  those  to  whom  I  may  be  allowed  by  right,  custom  or  privilege  to  call 
and  appeal,  in  these  writings  I  call  and  appeal,  a  first,  a  second,  a  third 
time;  vehemently,  more  vehemently,  most  vehemently.  I  demand  that 
notice  of  appeal  [apostolus]  be  granted  me,  if  there  be  any  one  who  is 
willing  and  able  to  grant  it  to  me;  and  especially  I  ask  from  you,  master 
Notary,  attestation.  I  protest  against  following  out  this  appeal  of  mine 
through  the  way  of  nullification,  abuse,  unfairness  or  injustice;  and  besides, 
as  is  my  right,  I  reserve  to  myself  the  option  of  adding,  shortening, 
changing,  correcting  and  improving  it.  And  I  retain  for  myself  every 
benefit  of  law,  and  for  my  adherents  and  those  who  wish  to  adhere  to  me. 

When  indeed  this  document  was  set  before  me  and  the  witnesses  men- 
tioned below  (as  is  premised),  he  protested  and  kept  protesting  strongly 
that  he  could  not  go  in  person  or  by  attorney  to  him  from  whom  he  stands 
appealed,  both  because  of  fear  of  the  very  many  who  are  plotting  against 
him  and  his  life,  and  because  of  the  danger  of  the  journey.  And  so,  with  due 
earnestness  he  requested  from  me,  the  public  notary,  that  there  be  given 


418  APPENDIXES 

and  granted  to  him  such  notice  of  appeal  as  is  his  right  according  to  law. 
According  to  his  request,  I  gave  him  such  notice  as  is  his  due,  or  at  least 
such  attestation  as  could  be  written  in  the  form  of  a  public  document.  Con- 
cerning all  and  each  of  these  things,  he  sought  of  me,  the  public  notary, 
written  below,  that  one  or  more  public  documents  be  prepared. 

These  things  were  done  at  Wittenberg,  the  diocese  of  Brandenburg,  in  the 
year,  indiction,  day,  month,  and  pontificate  above-mentioned;  in  the  reign 
of  the  godlike  Maximilian,  Emperor  of  the  Romans,  in  the  third  hour  or 
thereabouts,  in  the  chapel  of  the  Body  of  Christ,  situated  in  the  church-yard 
of  the  same  parish;  there  being  present  also  Christopher  Beehr,  by  sacred 
Apostolic  and  Imperial  authority  Viscount  of  Constance,  and  Jerome 
Papiss,  priest  of  the  Court  Diocese,  witnesses  alike  called  and  demanded 
and  required  for  the  foregoing  things. 


IV 

THE   DECREE    OF  WORMS1 

WE,  Charles  V.,  by  God's  grace  elected  Roman  Emperor,  always 
Augustus,  King  of  Germany,  Spain,  both  Sicilies,  Jerusalem,  Hungary, 
Dalmatia,  Croatia,  etc.,  Archduke  of  Austria,  Duke  of  Burgundy,  Count 
of  Habsburg,  Flanders  and  Tyrol,  offer  our  grace  and  all  good  to  all  and 
several,  Electors,  Princes,  spiritual  and  secular,  prelates,  counts,  barons, 
knights,  nobles,  captains,  governors,  burgomasters,  councillors,  citizens 
and  communities,  also  rectors  and  officers  of  all  universities,  and  besides 
to  all  others  of  our  realms  and  the  Empire,  who  owe  us  obedience  and 
loyalty  for  their  dignities  and  lands,  of  whatsoever  rank  they  may  be,  to 
whom  this  our  imperial  letter  or  a  credible  copy,  certified  by  a  spiritual 
prelate  or  a  public  notary  may  come  or  be  announced. 

1.  Most  reverend  and  honorable,  illustrious,  well-born  and  noble,  dear 
friends,  nephews,  uncles,  Electors,  Princes,  devoted  and  loyal:  as  it 
pertains  to  our  office  of  Roman  Emperor,  not  only  to  enlarge  the  bounds 
of  the  Holy  Roman  Empire  which  our  fathers  of  the  German  nation 
founded  for  the  defence  of  the  holy  Roman  and  Catholic  Church,  through 
the  divine  grace,  with  much  shedding  of  blood;  but  also,  according  to  the 
rule  hitherto  observed  by  the  holy  Roman  Church,  to  take  care  that  no 
stain  or  suspicion  of  heresy  should  contaminate  our  holy  faith  in  the 
Roman  Empire — or,  if  the  same  has  already  begun,  to  extirpate  it  with 
all  necessary  diligence,  good  means  and  discretion: 

1  The  papal  legate,  Aleander,  claims  the  authorship  of  this  Edict:  "Then  I 
was  commissioned  by  the  Emperor  and  council  to  prepare  the  decree,  with  some 
little  justification  if  I  could,  in  order  that  people  might  be  satisfied."  (Dispatch 
of  May  5.  See  Brieger,  Aleander  und  Luther,  Gotha,  1884  p.  178.)  The  internal 
evidence  bears  out  the  claim.  Aleander  prepared  the  original  draft  in  Latin,  and 
immediately  had  a  translation  made  into  German.  The  Emperor  signed  both 
documents,  and  therefore,  however  they  might  differ,  no  question  could  arise  as  to 
the  superior  authority  of  either  text.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  they  differ  in  no  im- 
portant respect.  The  Latin  text  may  be  found  in  Gerdsii  Historia  Reformationis, 
2:  Appendix,  34-47,  while  the  German  text  is  in  Walch,  15:  2264-2280.  In  the 
following  translation,  the  numbering  of  the  paragraphs  follows  the  Latin  text. 
Both  texts  have  been  carefully  compared  throughout,  and  while  in  the  main  the 
German  has  been  followed  as  the  more  concise  and  vigorous  of  the  two,  in  the 
rendering  of  an  occasional  phrase  or  clause  the  Latin  has  been  preferred. 


APPENDIXES  419 

2.  Therefore  we  hold,  that  if  such  were  the  duty  of  any  of  our  an- 
cestors, much  higher  and  greater  is  the  obligation  on  us,  inasmuch  as  the 
unparalleled  goodness  of  Almighty  God,  for  the  protection  and  increase 
of  his  holy  faith,  has  endowed  us  with  more  kingdoms  and  lands  and  great- 
er power  in  the  Empire,  than  any  of  our  ancestors  for  many  years  [has 
possessed].     Moreover  we  are  also  sprung  from  the  paternal  stock  of  the 
Emperors  and  Archdukes  of  Austria,  and  Dukes  of  Burgundy;  and  from 
the  maternal  stock  of  the  most  faithful  Kings  of  Spain,  the  Sicilies  and 
Jerusalem — the  memory  of  whose  illustrious  deeds,  wrought  for  the  Chris- 
tian faith,  will  never  pass  away. 

3.  Wherefore,  certain  heresies,  which  sprang  up  in  the  German  nation 
within  the  last  three  years,  and  afterwards  were  truly  condemned  by  the 
Holy  Councils  and  the  papal  decrees  with  the  consent  of  the  Catholic 
Church,  and  now  are  drawn  anew  from  hell, — should  we  permit  them  to 
become  more  deeply  rooted,  [or]  by  our  negligence  conceal  and  bear  with 
them,  our  conscience  would  be  greatly  burdened,  and  the  eternal  glory 
of  our  name  would  be  covered  by  a  dark  cloud  in  the  fortunate  beginning 
of  our  reign. 

4.  Since  now  without  doubt  it  is  plain  to  you  all,  how  far  the  errors 
and  heresies  depart  from  the  Christian  way,  which  a  certain  Martin 
Luther,  of  the  Augustinian  order,  has  sought  to  introduce  and  disseminate 
within  the  Christian  religion  and  order,  especially  in  the  German  nation, 
renowned  as  a  perpetual  destroyer  of  all  unbelief  and  heresy;  so  that, 
unless  it  is  speedily  prevented,  the  whole  German  nation  will  be  infected 
by  this  same  disorder,  and  mighty  dissolution  and  pitiable  downfall  of 
good  morals,  of  the  peace  and  Christian  faith  will  result. 

5.  Because  our  holy  father  Pope  Leo  X,  chief  bishop  of  the  holy 
Roman  and  Catholic  Christian  Church,  to  whom  the  care  and  oversight 
of  things  that  appertain  to  the  Christian  faith  especially  belongs,  has  been 
not  unjustly  moved  to  warn  and  admonish  the  aforesaid  Luther,  at  first 
in  a  fatherly  and  mild  manner,  to  desist  from  so  bad  a  beginning  and  to 
retract  his  circulated  errors. 

6.  And  as  he  failed  to  do  that,  and  continually  added  further  evil, 
his  Holiness  thought  it  well  to  take  just  and  not  unusual  means  and  ways 
against  him.     And  therefore  many  times1  he  assembled  the  cardinals, 
bishops  and  other  prelates,  also  the  priors  and  generals  of  the  regular 
orders,  and  many  other  eminent  and  honorable  men,  of  all  renown,  skill 
and  learning,  and  besides  he  summoned  and  called  many  doctors  and 
masters  from  other  Christian  nations,  and  thereto  cited  the  aforesaid 
Martin  Luther.    And  as  he  contumaciously  remained  away,   all  his 
writings,  both  in  Latin  and  in  German,  published  and  yet  to  be  published, 
were  condemned  as  harmful  and  altogether  hostile  to  the  faith  and  unity 
of  the  Church,  and  by  papal  authority,  with  the  advice  and  consent  after 
mature  consideration  of  the  aforesaid  Cardinals,  bishops,  prelates,  doc- 
tors and  masters,  they  were  ordered  to  be  everywhere  burned  and  wholly 
destroyed. 

7.  And  then — unless,  within  a  prescribed  time  after  the  publication 
of  the  decree  of  his  Holiness,  he  should  show  that  he  repented  of  his 
errors,  and  that  he  was  converted  and  retracted  them — according  to  the 

1  Mehrmal,  Lat.  semel  el  iterum — the  first,  but  by  no  means  the  last,  of  the 
falsehoods  in  which  this  document  abounds. 


420  APPENDIXES 

statutes  of  the  law,  he  ordered  and  commanded  the  aforesaid  Luther  to 
be  shunned  by  all,  under  the  penalties  contained  in  papal  bulls  as  a 
son  of  disobedience  and  evil,  as  a  schismatic  and  heretic.  Which  his 
Holiness,  through  his  orator  and  nuncio,  specially  ordered  and  enjoined 
on  us,  as  the  true  and  chief  Defender  of  the  Christian  faith,  and  the  Advo- 
cate of  the  holy  papal  See  and  of  the  Roman  and  Catholic  Christian 
Church;  with  desire  and  demand,  according  to  our  oath  and  in  virtue 
of  the  authority  and  justice  of  our  imperial  office,  that  we  give  his  Holiness 
in  this  emergency  our  aid  of  the  secular  sword,  for  the  vindication  of  the 
Christian  faith;  and  that  everywhere  in  the  Holy  Roman  Empire,  also  as 
befits  a  faithful  Christian  king  and  prince,  hi  our  hereditary  kingdoms, 
principalities  and  lands,  but  especially  in  the  German  nation,  we  order 
and  command  all  and  single  to  hold  inviolate  what  is  contained  in  bulls 
of  his  Holiness,  and  to  give  execution  and  fulfilment  to  them. 

8.  And  although,  after  the  delivery  of  the  papal  bull  and  final  con- 
demnation of  Luther,  we  announced  that  exhortation  in  many  places  in 
the  German  nation,  as  well  as  in  our  Burgundian  lands,  and  especially 
enjoined  on  Cologne,  Trier,  Mainz,  and  Liittich  to  obey  and  execute 
it,  nevertheless,  Martin  Luther  has  taken  no  account  of  it,  nor  improved, 
nor  revoked  his  errors,  nor  sought  absolution  from  his  papal  Holiness  and 
grace  from  the  holy  Christian  Church,  but  like  a  madman  plotting  the 
manifest  destruction  of  the  holy  Church,  daily  scatters  abroad  much 
worse  fruit  and  effect  of  his  depraved  heart  and  mind,  through  very 
numerous  books,  both  in  Latin  and  German,  composed  by  himself, 
or  at  least  under  his  name,  which  are  full  of  heresies  and  blasphemies, 
not  only  new  but  formerly  condemned  by  holy  Councils. 

9.  Therein  he  destroys,  overturns,  and  injures  the  number,  arrange- 
ment and  use  of  the  seven  sacraments,  so  many  years  held  by  the  holy 
Church,  and  in  wondrous  ways  shamefully  pollutes  the  indissoluble 
bonds  of  holy  matrimony.    He  says  also  that  holy  unction  is  without 
efficacy.    He  desires  also  to  adapt  our  use  and  enjoyment  of  the  un- 
utterably holy  sacrament  [the  Latin  adds:  of  the  Lord's  Supper^  to  the 
custom  and  use  of  the  condemned  Bohemians.    And  he  begins  to  involve 
[in  his  errors]  confession,  which  is  most  wholesome  for  the  hearts  that  are 
polluted  or  laden  with  sins,  so  that  no  basis  nor  fruit  can  be  received  from 
it.     Finally,  he  threatens  to  write  so  much  further  of  confession  (if 
that  is  allowed)  that  not  only  will  almost  all  who  have  read  his  crazy 
writings  dare  to  say  that  confession  is  useless,  but  also  there  will  be  few 
who  do  not  declare  that  one  should  not  confess. 

10.  He  not  only  holds  irreligious  ideas  concerning  the  priestly  office 
and  order,  but  also  urges  secular  and  lay  persons  to  bathe  their  hands  in 
the  blood  of  priests;  and  he  uses  scurrilous  and  shameful  words  against 
the  chief  priest  of  our  Christian  faith,  the  successor  of  St.  Peter  and  true 
Vicar  of  Christ  on  earth,  and  pursues  him  with  manifold  and  unheard-of 
enmities  and  invectives.    He  confirms  also  from  the  heathen  poets  1 
that  there  is  no  free-will,  because  all  things  are  settled  by  an  immutable 
decree. 

1  This  was  a  curious  objection  to  emanate  from  the  court  of  Rome  during 
the  Pontificate  of  Leo  X.  If  half  is  true  that  is  told,  a  heathen  poet  had  more 
authority  there  than  a  Father,  not  to  say  an  Evangelist.  The  chief  confirmations 
of  his  doctrine  of  the  will,  cited  by  Luther  from  Augustine,  provoked  from  Aleander 
nothing  worse  than  a  prudent  silence. 


APPENDIXES  421 

11.  And  he  writes  that  the  Mass  confers  no  benefit  on  him  for  whom 
it  is  celebrated.    Moreover  he  overthrows  the  custom  of  fasting  and  pray- 
er, established  by  the  holy  Church  and  hitherto  maintained.    Especially 
does  he  impugn  the  authority  of  the  holy  Fathers,  as  they  are  received 
by  the  Church,  and  wholly  deprives  them  of  obedience  and  authority. 
And  everywhere  his  writings  breathe  out  nothing  else  than  sedition, 
destruction,  war,  slaughter,  rapine,  fire,  and  are  fitted  to  cause  the  com- 
plete downfall  of  the  Christian  faith.    Because  he  teaches  a  loose,  self- 
willed  life,  severed  from  all  laws  and  wholly  brutish;  and  he  is  a  loose, 
self-willed  man,  who  condemns  and  rejects  all  laws;  for  he  has  had  no 
fear  or  shame  to  burn  publicly  the  decretals  and  canon  laws.    Aiid  if 
he  had  feared  the  secular  sword  no  more  than  the  ban  and  penalties  of 
the  Pope,  he  would  have  committed  much  worse  offences  against  the 
civil  law. 

12.  He  does  not  blush  to  speak  publicly  against  holy  councils,  and 
to  abuse  and  insult  them  at  will.     Especially  has  he  everywhere  bitterly 
attacked  the  council  of  Constance  with  his  foul  mouth,  and  calls  it  a 
synagogue  of  Satan,  to  the  shame  and  disgrace  of  the  whole  Christian 
Church  and  of  the  German  nation.     And  all  those  who  were  members  of 
it,  and  ordered  John  Hus  to  be  burned  for  his  heretical  conduct — namely, 
our  predecessor,  Emperor  Sigismund  and  the  entire  assembly  of  princes 
of  the  holy  Empire — he  calls  antichrists,  apostles  of  the  devil,  murderers 
and  Pharisees.    And  he  also  says  that  everything  condemned  in  the  same 
council  as  Hussite  error,  was  Christian  and  evangelical,  and  declares 
that  he  will  prove  this  and  defend  it.     [But  the  articles  that  the  same 
council  adopted,  he  will  in  no  way  accept.] 1    And  he  has  fallen  into  such 
madness  of  spirit  as  to  boast,  that  if  Hus  were  a  heretic  he  is  ten  times  a 
heretic. 

13.  And  all  the  other  innumerable  wickednesses  of  Luther,  for  the  sake 
of  brevity,  may  remain  unreckoned.     This  fellow  appears  to  be  not  so  much 
a  man  as  a  wicked  demon  in  the  form  of  men,  clothed  in  monk's  garb. 
He  has  assembled  many  heresies  of  the  greatest  condemned  heretics, 
long  since  forgotten,  together  with  some  newly  invented,  in  one  stinking 
puddle,  under  pretext  of  preaching  the  faith,  with  which  he  commonly 
imagines  that  with  so  great  industry  he  will  destroy  the  true  and  genuine 
faith,  and  under  the  name  and  appearance  of  evangelical  doctrine  over- 
turn and  destroy  all  evangelical  peace  and  love,  as  well  as  all  order  of 
good  things  and  the  most  excellent  hierarchy  of  the  Church. 

14.  All  this  have  we  taken  to  heart,  in  view  of  the  power  of  our 
imperial  office  and  dignity  with  which  we  have  been  endowed  by  God; 
also  of  our  love  and  attachment,  which  we  like  our  predecessors  have  and 
bear  toward   the   protection,  upholding  and  defence  of  the  Christian 
faith,  as  well  as  the  honor  of  the  Roman  Bishop  and  holy  See.    And  we 
consider,  especially  after  the  aforesaid  admonition  of  papal  Holiness, 
that  it  will  not  be  possible  for  us  to  be  careless  in  so  great  and  frightful 
a  matter,  without  great  reproach  to  ourself  and  outrage  and  wrong  to 
all  Christendom.    And  we  shall  not  do  thus,  such  is  not  our  will  and 
disposition,  but  we  wish  rather  to  walk  in  the  footsteps  of  our  predecessors, 
the  Roman  Emperors,  and  emulate  their  illustrious  deeds,  by  giving 
full  protection  to  the  Christian  Church,  and  adhere  to  the  excellent 

1  The  sentence  in  brackets  is  wanting  in  the  Latin  text  of  the  Edict. 


422  APPENDIXES 

regulations  [Ger.  Constitutionen,  Lai.  constitutionibus]  made  for  the  pun- 
ishment and  extirpation  of  heretics. 

15.  And  now  especially  on  account  of  these  things  we  have  again 
summoned  here  to  Worms  our  and  the  holy  Empire's  Electors,  Princes 
and  Estates,  and  carefully  examined  the  aforesaid  matters  with  great 
diligence,  as  the  evident  necessity  demands,  and  with  unanimous  advice 
-and  consent x  we  agreed  to  the  following  opinion  and  put  it  in  form. 

16.  Although  one  so  condemned  and  persisting  in  his  hidden  perversity, 
separated  from  the  rites  of  the  Christian  Church  and  a  manifest  heretic,  is 
denied  a  hearing  under  all  laws;2  nevertheless,  to  prevent  all  unprofitable 
dispute,  as  some  openly  contend  that  many  books  have  been  written 
and  printed  in  Luther's  name  which  he  had  not  composed  or  published, 
and  also  others  contend  that  it  was  but  just  before  proceeding  further 
against  him,  to  hear  Luther,  to  summon  him  before  us  with  a  safe-conduct; 
— we  have  therefore  called  him  to  our  Court,  and  through  our  herald 
gave  him  a  safe-conduct  to  come  hither,  in  order  that  he  might  be  ques- 
tioned in  our  own  presence  and  in  that  of  the  Electors,  Princes  and  Estates 
of  the  Empire:  whether  he  had  composed  the  books  which  were  then  laid 
before  his  eyes  as  well  as  other  books  that  are  circulated  in  his  name; 
and  whether  he  would  retract  whatever  is  found  in  such  books  contrary 
to  the  holy  Councils,  decrees,  usage  and  custom  of  our  fathers  as  held  to 
this  day,  and  come  again  to  the  bosom  and  unity  of  the  holy  Church. 

17.  And  there  were  bestowed  upon  him  such  entreaties  and  admo- 
nitions as  might  soften  and  overcome  a  man  the  most  pertinacious  and 
harder  than  a  stone.    And  as  soon  as  he  heard  these  books,  he  acknowl- 
edged them  as  his  own,  and  moreover  declared  that  he  would  never 
deny  them.    And  he  also  says  that  he  has  made  many  other  books, 
which  we  have  not  mentioned  herein  because  we  have  no  knowledge  of 
them. 

18.  But  concerning  the  retractions,  he  begged  time,  and  though  this 
might  justly  have  been  denied  him,  since  against  innovation  and  error 
in  the  faith  action  should  be  taken  without  delay;  and  since  from  our 
summons,  mandate  and  letters  borne  to  him,  both  of  which  he  undoubted- 
ly received,  he  must  clearly  have  understood  for  what  reason  he  was 
summoned  before  us,  and  therefore  should  not  have  come  before  us  and 
the  Estates  without  an  answer  made  ready;  nevertheless,  from  considera- 
ations  of  graciousness  and  kindness  we  granted  him  another  day. 

19.  And  on  the  next  day  he  again  appeared  before  us  and  the  Estates 
of  the  Empire.    And,  as  before,  he  was  entreated  with  diligent  exhortation 
to  reconsider:  with  our  promise  that  if  he  would  retract  the  things  in 
his  books  that  should  be  condemned,  he  should  again  come  into  grace 
and  kindness  of  our  holy  Father,  the  Pope;  and  we  would  see  to  it  that 
his  Holiness  should  choose  from  each  Christian  nation  two  men  of  good 
life  and  great  learning  to  examine  his  books  diligently,  and  to  remove  the 
evil  therefrom,  and  whatever  was  found  good  that  should  the  papal  Holi- 
ness approve. 

1  On  this  falsehood,  see  final  note  appended  to  this  document. 

2  Another  astonishing  falsehood.      Charles,   before  his  coronation  at  Aachen, 
October  23,   1520,  had  been  compelled  to  sign  a  "capitulation"  in  thirty-four 
articles,  one  of  the  most  important  of  which  was  that  he  would  place  no  one  under 
the  ban  of  the  Empire  without  a  hearing  or  without  just  cause.     (Beard,  Life  of 
Martin  Luther,  318.) 


APPENDIXES  423 

20.  But  after  all  this  he  would  not  make  any  retraction,  nor  would 
he  accept  our  gracious  offer,  but  rejected  it  altogether;  and,  with  such 
improper  words  and  behavior  as  were  not  at  all  fitting  for  a  rational  and 
orderly  priest  [Geistlichen,  religiose],  he  declared  openly  that  he  would 
not  change  a  word  in  his  books  except  he  were  convinced  by  disputations, 
which  he  desired  in  reliance  on  our  safe-conduct,  notwithstanding  he 
well  knows  that  they  are  forbidden  by  divine  and  human  laws.     He  also 
in  our  presence  and  that  of  the  Estates,  uncharitably  and  arrogantly 
ridiculed,  condemned,  slandered  and  altogether  despised  the  holy  coun- 
cils,1 especially  that  of  Constance  which  to  the  eternal  honor  of  the  German 
nation  restored  to  it  peace  and  unity. 

21.  And  although  upon  such  a  rude  answer — which  was  not  heard 
by  us  and  the  Estates,  without  depression  of  mind,  and  the  irritation 
of  the  common  people — we  had  determined  for  several  reasons  immediate- 
ly to  take  further  measures  to  send  him  away  and  let  him  go  home  forth- 
with; and  this  opinion  having  been  put  in  writing  was  made  public  next 
day.2     Nevertheless,  we  were  moved  by  the  honorable  request  of  the 
Electors,  Princes  and  Estates,  to  give  him  three  days  additional  time 
in  which  to  change  his  mind. 

22.  And  in  the  meantime,  two  electors,  two  spiritual  and  two  civil 
princes,  and  two  representatives  of  our  imperial  cities,  were  appointed 
at  the  request  and  command  of  the  Diet,  to  cite  the  said  Luther  before 
them,  and  if  possible  and  convenient,  to  leave  nothing  undone  to  convert 
him  by  good  warning,  exhortation  and  instruction;  and,  in  case  he  should 
not  change  his  mind,  to  show  him  what  severe  punishment  would  be 
visited  upon  him  by  us  and  the  holy  Empire  according  to  direction  of 
the  laws. 

23.  And  since  such  diligence  and  seriousness  were  unfruitful  with  him, 
one  of  our  Electors  took  two  kind  and  skilful  Doctors  and  together  with 
them  and  by  himself,  not  only  with  much  exhortation  but  also  with  plain 
demonstration  endeavored  to  persuade  him  that  Luther's  errors  are  many; 
that  he  should  regard  more  than  his  own  opinion  our  holy  father  Pope, 
and  also  us  and  the  Estates  of  the  Empire,  and  the  customs  of  other 
Christ-believing  nations,  which  they  have  observed  according  to  the 
order  of  Christian  Churches  for  so  many  years.     And  in  addition  they 
told  him  that  if  he  would  give  up  his  self-will  and  turn  again,  he  would 
discover  such  conduct  to  be  in  accord  with  the  honorable  example  of  many 
holy  Fathers,  and  would  be  for  the  preservation  of  his  soul,  honor  and 
body. 

24.  Upon  this,  as  we  have  been  credibly  informed,  Martin  Luther 
replied  that  he  not  only  doubted  and  suspected  all  the  persons  just  men- 
tioned, but  also  an  ecumenical  council  (though  it  be  unanimous);  and 
that  he  would  not  change  the  least  syllable  in  his  writings — as  also  he 
previously  declared  before  us  and  the  Estates  of  the  Empire — except  he 

1  This  paragraph  is  of  outrageous  slander  all  compact.     For  what  Luther  actu- 
ally did  say  at  the   Diet,  see  the  Acta  in  LOL,  6:  6  seq.     Walch,    15:  1018  seq.; 
also  reprinted  by  Forstemann,  Neues  Urkundenbuch  zur  Geschichte  der  evangelischen 
Kirchen-Reformation  (Hamburg,  1842).    For  an  excellent  summary  in  English,  see 
Beard,  436-441. 

2  This  is  the  original  of  the  Edict,  closely  followed  as  to  main  points  in  the 
final  document.    It  is  reprinted  by  Forstemann,  p.  75  seq.;  Walch,  15:  2235-2237. 
It  was  in  French,  and  written  by  Charles  himself,  but  was  accompanied  by  a  Ger- 
man translation. 


424  APPENDIXES 

were  convinced  by  learned  men.  But  this  must  be  done  according  to  his 
rule,  and  not  from  the  councils  or  from  imperial  or  Christian  laws,  nor 
by  the  authority  of  any  of  the  Fathers,  no  matter  how  holy,  but  only  by 
the  words  of  the  Holy  Scriptures; — which  he  thinks  must  be  understood 
according  to  his  own  ideas  and  to  the  satisfaction  of  his  uncertain  opinions 
[Gemuths,  opiniones].  But  it  is  perfectly  clear  that  by  the  said  authorities 
[i.  e.,  the  Fathers]  completing  what  is  implied  or  expressed  in  both  Testa- 
ments, the  holy  Christian  Church  has  hitherto  been  governed. 

25.  Because  these  things  are  so  transacted,  and  Martin  Luther  yet 
persists  obstinately  and  perversely  in  maintaining  his  heretical  opinions; 
therefore,  all  pious  and  God-fearing  persons  shall  abominate  and  abhor 
him. as  one  mad  or  possessed  by  a  demon.    According  to  the  tenor  of 
our  letters  concerning  his  safety,  we  commanded  him  to  depart  from  our 
sight  by  April  25;  and  again  we  sent  him  a  herald  to  say  that  from  the 
aforesaid  25th  of  April  he  may  reckon  the  twenty  days  next  following, 
during  which  he  will  have  our  safe-conduct,  at  the  expiration  of  which 
twenty  days  he  shall  be  under  our  protection  no  longer.    And  thereupon 
it  will  be  in  order  to  proceed  to  other  appropriate  remedies  against  this 
severe,  virulent  disease,  as  follows: 

26.  In  the  first  place,  for  the  praise  and  glory  of  Almighty  God,  and 
the  defence  of  the  Christian  faith,  also  of  the  Roman  Pontiff  and  the  honor 
due  the  Apostolic  See,  by  the  authority  and  power  of  our  dignity  and 
office  of  Emperor,  together  with  the  unanimous  will  and  consent 1  of  our 
and  the  holy  Empire's  Electors,  Princes  and  Estates,  now  here  assembled, 
for  the  perpetual  remembrance  of  this  affair,  for  the  execution  of  the 
decree,  judgment  and  condemnation  according  to  the  bull  that  our 
father  the  Pope  has  published  as  the  proper  judge  of  these  things,  we  have 
declared  and  made  known  the  said  Martin  Luther  shall  hereafter  be 
held  and  esteemed  by  each  and  all  of  us  as  a  limb  cut  off  from  the  Church 
of  God,  an  obstinate  schismatic  and  manifest  heretic. 

27.  And  we  give  public  attestation  by  these  letters  that  we  order 
and  command  each  and  several  of  you,  as  you  owe  faith  to  us  and  the 
holy  Empire,  and  would  escape  the  penalties  of  the  crime  of  treason,  and 
the  ban  and  over-ban 2  of  the  Empire,  and  moreover  deprivations  of  all 
royal  dues,  fiefs,  privileges  and  immunities,  which  up  to  this  time  you 
have  in  any  way  obtained  from  our  predecessors,  ourself  and  the  holy 
Empire; — commanding,  we  say,  by  the  Roman  and  imperial  majesty, 
we  strictly  desire  that  immediately  after  the  expiration  of  the  appointed 
twenty  days,  terminating  on  the  14th  day  of  May,  you  shall  not  give 
the  aforesaid  Martin  Luther  house,  hospitality,  lodging,  food,  drink, 
neither  shall  anyone,  by  word  or  deed,  secretly  or  openly,  succor  or 
assist  him  by  counsel  or  help;  but  in  whatever  place  you  meet  him,  you 
shall  proceed  against  him;  if  you  have  sufficient  force,  you  shall  take  him 
prisoner  and  keep  him  in  close  custody;  either  you  shall  bring  him  or 
cause  him  to  be  brought,  at  least  let  us  know  where  he  may  be  captured; 
in  the  meanwhile  you  shall  keep  him  closely  imprisoned  until  you  receive 
notice  from  us  what  further  to  do,  according  to  the  direction  of  the  laws. 

1  Same  old  lie.     See  also  paragraphs  33  and  37. 

2  The  ban,  Acht,  was  the  declaration  of  civil  outlawry,  as  the  excommunication 
deprived  one  of  all  ecclesiastical  rights.     The  Aberacht,  or  Ueberacht,  over-ban, 
double-ban  was  originally  a  second  and  more  severe  declaration  of  outlawry. 


APPENDIXES  425 

And  for  such  holy  and  pious  work  we  will  make  you  rich  compensation 
for  your  labors  and  expenses. 

28.  In  like  manner  [you  shall  proceed]  against  his  friends,  adherents, 
patrons,  maintainers,  abettors,  sympathizers,  emulators,  and  followers. 
And  the  property  of  these,  personal  or  real,  in  the  strength  of  the  holy 
constitution  and  of  our  imperial  ban  and  over-ban,  you  shall  treat  in 
this  way,  namely,  overthrow  and  seize  it  [and]  transfer  it  to  our  custody, 
no  one  hindering  or  impeding — unless  he  shall  abandon  his  unrighteous 
way  and  secure  papal  absolution. 

29.  Henceforth  we  decree  to  all,  and  to  each  private  individual,  under 
the  penalties  already  prescribed,  that  no  one  shall  dare  to  buy,  sell, 
read,  preserve,  copy,  print,  or  cause  to  be  copied  or  printed,  any  books 
of  the  aforesaid  Martin  Luther,  condemned  by  our  holy  father  Pope,  as 
aforesaid,  or  any  other  writings  in  German  or  Latin  hitherto  composed 
by  him,  since  [they  are]  foul,  harmful,  suspected,  and  published  by  a 
notorious  and  stiff-necked  heretic.    Neither  shall  any  dare  to  approve 
his  opinions,  nor  to  proclaim,  defend  or  assert  them,  in  any  other  way  that 
human  ingenuity  can  invent — notwithstanding  he  may  have  put  some 
good  in  them  to  deceive  the  simple  man. 

30.  For  the  most  wholesome  foods,  if  they  are  tainted  by  a  little 
drop  of  poison,  are  shunned  by  all  men;  so  much  more  books  and  writings, 
imbued  with  a  thousand  deadly  and  pestiferous  poisons  for  the  soul, 
are  not  only  to  be  shunned  by  you  all,  but  moreover  to  be  driven  from  the 
memory  of  men  and  altogether  abolished,  lest  they  bring  harm  to  some 
one  or  death.     Because  all  things  rightly  and  laudably  inserted  in  those 
books,  received  and  approved  hitherto  by  the  holy  Fathers  and  the  Catho- 
lic Church,  are  frequently  used,  introduced  and  expounded  where  they 
may  be  found,  read  and  drawn  from  without  solicitude,  suspicion  or 
danger  of  any  evil. 

31.  Furthermore,  we  decree  that  all  and  several — of  whatever  dignity, 
rank,  order  or  station  they  may  be,  and  especially  those  who  have  and 
wield  authority,  under  the  aforesaid  penalties,  everywhere  in  the  Roman 
Empire  and  our  hereditary  principalities  and  lands — shall  take  stringent 
measures,  punish,  command;  that  they  burn  with  fire  each  and  all  of 
the  aforesaid  infected  writings  and  books  of  Luther,  that  cause  so  great 
uproar,  damage,  schism  and  heresy  in  the  Church  of  God;  and  that  by 
these  and  other  methods  they  utterly  abolish,  extirpate  and  annihilate 
them.     In  like  manner,  respecting  petitions  and  requisitions,  with  all 
diligent  and  good  faith  you  ought  to  assist  and  serve  the  nuncios  of  the 
blessed  Pontiff  and  their  chosen  emissaries;  and  none  the  less  in  their 
absence  you  ought  to  execute  and  fulfill,  to  do  and  act  according  to  our 
command  and  mandate. 

32.  In  the  meantime,  we  give  strict  command  by  these  letters  to  all 
other  subjects  and  loyal  people,  both  ours  and  those  of  the  Empire,  as 
well  as  those  in  our  hereditary  principalities  and  lands,  that  the  aforesaid 
officers  and  magistrates  shall  render  aid  and  obedience  with  promptness 
and  alacrity,  under  penalty  of  the  prescribed  punishment,  fines  and 
castigations. 

33.  Since  evident  necessity  compels,  in  order  to  foresee  and  prevent, 
it  is  required  that  no  books  of  Luther — or  harmful  passages  culled  from 
them,  or  editions  with  the  author's  name  suppressed,  or  interwoven  with 


426  APPENDIXES 

other  writings,  nor  many  other  books  that  we  are  compelled  to  mention 
with  sorrowful  mind,  for  the  most  part  made  and  printed  in  Germany 
and  full  of  evil  teaching  and  example — shall  be  further  printed:  so  that 
through  reading  them  Christian  believers  may  no  longer  be  led  into  error 
concerning  faith,  life  and  good  morals,  and  that  scandal,  envy,  hatred 
may  not  spring  up  in  the  Churches  of  God,  which  has  only  been  too  ap- 
parent hitherto  and  daily  becomes  greater,  so  that  kingdoms  and  realms 
shall,  it  is  feared,  come  into  commotion,  division  and  disobedience. 
Moreover,  in  order  to  extinguish  this  madness,  with  the  counsel  and  con- 
sent of  the  Electors,  Princes  and  Estates,  under  the  aforesaid  heavy 
penalties,  fines  and  punishments,  as  Emperor  and  hereditary  Lord,  we 
decree  once  more  to  all  our  subjects  and  those  of  the  Empire,  and  of  our 
hereditary  principalities  and  lands,  that  no  one  of  you  shall  have  such 
harmful  and  poisonous  books,  nor  other  extracts  or  transcripts,  that  con- 
tain errors  against  our  holy  faith  and  what  the  Catholic  Church  has 
hitherto  held. 

34.  Furthermore,  hostile  and  abusive  writings  against  our  holy  father 
Pope,  prelates,  Princes,  universities  and  their  faculties,  and  other  honor- 
able persons,  and  whatever  contains  anything  contrary  to  good  morals 
and  the  holy  Roman  Church,  shall  no  longer  be  composed,  written, 
printed,  illustrated,  sold,  bought,  preserved  secretly  or  publicly,  or  caused 
to  be  written,  printed  or  illustrated,  nor  in  any  other  imaginable  way  shall 
they  connive  or  permit  this  to  be  done. 

35.  Likewise  under  the  penalties  indicated,  we  strictly  command  all 
who  ordain  and  administer  justice,  that  on  the  authority  of  this  our 
Edict,  they  shall  seize,  tear  in  pieces  and  burn  such  writings,  books,  tracts 
and  pictures,  hitherto  made  and  written,  whosoever  be  their  owner  or 
wheresoever  they  be  found  throughout  the  whole  Empire  and  our  hered- 
itary dominions. 

36.  Also,  authors,  writers,  printers,  and  artists,  as  well  as  purchasers 
and  sellers  of  such  foul  writings,  books,  tracts  and  pictures,  after  the 
promulgation  of  our  present  imperial  decree,  and  those  persisting  or 
contriving  something  anew,  if  it  becomes  known — you  may  seize  and 
appropriate  to  yourselves,  wherever  you  may  be  able  to  obtain  them,  their 
substance,  goods  and  privileges.    This  liberty  is  conceded  you  by  law, 
and  for  any  injury  inflicted  you  will  not  be  obliged  to  answer  to  the  law. 

37.  Lastly,  to  the  end  that,  with  present  evils  also  occasions  for  future 
heresies  may  be  prevented  and  altogether  removed,  and  that  poison 
introduced  by  the  authors  of  these  books  may  not  be  further  disseminated 
and  that  the  most  worthy  art  of  printing  may  hereafter  be  employed  only 
for  noble  and  worthy  purposes;  therefore,  of  our  imperial  and  royal  power 
and  knowledge,  with  the  unanimous  advice  of  our  imperial  Electors, 
Princes  and  Estates,  we  have  commanded  under  the  imperial  ban  and 
over-ban,  and  the  other  penalties  aforesaid;  and  do  command,  deliberately, 
by  the  power  of  this  our  Edict,  to  which  we  have  given  the  sanction  of 
inviolable  law,  that  hereafter  no  book-printer  or  any  other  person  whoso- 
ever or  wherever  he  be,  in  the  Holy  Roman  Empire  or  in  our  hereditary 
dominions,  principalities  and  lands,  shall  print  for  the  first  time  or  reprint 
any  books  or  writings  in  which  there  is  anything  that  treats  of  the  Chris- 
tian faith,  little  or  much;  unless  with  the  knowledge  and  consent  of  the 
bishop  of  the  diocese,  or  his  vicar,  together  with  the  permission  of  the 


APPENDIXES  427 

theological  faculty  of  an  adjoining  university.  But  other  books,  in  what- 
ever faculty  and  whatever  they  treat,  shall  be  printed,  sold,  or  caused  to 
be  printed  or  sold,  with  the  knowledge  and  consent  of  the  bishop,  and  not 
otherwise. 

38.  But  if  anyone,  of  whatever  dignity,  rank  or  title  he  may  be,  shall 
wilfully  contravene  or  transgress  this  our  Christian  and  imperial  order, 
decree,  mandate,  law  and  statute,  which  shall  be  kept  altogether  inviolable 
in  one  or  more  of  the  preceding  articles  concerning  the  matter  of  Luther 
or  printing,  in  any  way  that  men's  minds  may  invent,  we  annul  and  make 
such  action  void.  As  to  such  we  will  that  they  shall  be  prosecuted  and 
dealt  with  according  to  the  preceding  penalties,  as  well  as  those  contained 
in  the  laws,  and  according  to  the  form  and  process  of  the  excommunica- 
tion, and  of  the  imperial  ban  and  over-ban.  [Let  everyone  know  how 
to  order  himself  accordingly.] l 

And  in  order  that  all  this  may  be  done  and  credit  given,  we  have  sealed 
this  document  with  out  imperial  seal,  which  has  been  affixed  in  our  holy 
imperial  city  of  Worms,  on  the  eighth  day  of  May,2  after  the  birth  of 
Christ,  1521,  in  the  second  year  of  our  reign  over  the  Roman  Empire,, 
and  over  other  lands  the  sixth. 


AGAINST  THE   MURDERING  AND   ROBBING  BANDS   OF  THE   PEASANTS3 

IN  the  preceding  book  I  had  no  occasion  to  condemn  the  peasants,, 
because  they  promised  to  yield  to  law  and  better  instruction,  as  Christ 
also  demands  (Matt.  7:1).  But  before  I  can  turn  around,  they  go  out 
and  appeal  to  force,  in  spite  of  their  promise,  and  rob  and  pillage  and  act 

1  Words  in  brackets  not  in  the  Latin  text. 

2  That  the  Edict  was  signed  and  sealed  on  May  8th,  is  a  deliberate  falsehood. 
Nothing  is  better  established  regarding   the  whole   transaction   than    that   the- 
signature  was  affixed  May  26,  the  day  after  the  final  adjournment  of  the  Diet. 
It  is  also  fully  established  that  the  proposed  law  was  never  laid  before  the  Diet, 
but  was  read  to  a  part  of  the  Electors  and  a  few  other  princes  at  a  private  con- 
ference with  the  Emperor.    Prince-elector  Joachim,  of  Brandenburg,  took  it  upon 
himself  then  to  say  that  the  Edict  would  have  the  assent  of  all  the  Estates,  and 
for  obvious  reasons  there  was  no  dissenting  voice.    But  as  none  of  the  Estates  as 
a  matter  of  fact  did  give  its  assent,  never  even  had  the  document  before  them  for 
action,  it  is  evident  that  the  Edict  was  promulgated  on  the  sole  authority  of  the 
Emperor.    It  is  as  clear  as  any  proposition  in  constitutional  law  can  be,  that  the 
document  never  had  the  force  of  law  in  the  Empire.    The  above  conclusions  are 
substantially  identical  with  those  of  Ranke,  in  his  Deutsche  Geschichte  im  Zeitalter 
der  Reformation.     Berlin,  1881,  1:  342  seq.    For  the  documents  on  which  they  rest, 
see  Brieger,  especially  pp.  218,  219.     Most  of  Aleander's  dispatches  are  in  Italian; 
for  a  brief  summary  of  them  in  English,  see  Beard,  Life  of  Martin  Luther,  452-454^ 
There  has  naturally  been  a  hot  controversy  as  to  the  meaning  of  many  of  the 
facts — whether,  for  example,  this  antedating  of  the  Edict  was  with  fraudulent 
intent,  to  give  the  impression  that  it  was  signed  and  promulgated  before  the  Diet 
had  begun  to  disperse,  and  therefore  presumptively  by  unanimous  consent,  as  is 
frequently  and  falsely  asserted  in  the  document.     Two  electors,  Frederick,  of 
Saxony,  and  the  Count  Palatine,  had  departed  by  May  23.     For  a  full  discussion 
of  this  question,  see  1  KG,  9:  120  seq.,  132  seq.    Janssen  denies  that  the  document 
was  antedated  at  all,  on  the  curious   ground   that  Aleander's   dispatch  of  May 
8th  shows  the    draft    to    have    been   completed    at   that   date.      (Geschichte  des 
Deutschen  Volks,  Freiburg,  1897,  2:  184,  note  4.)     But  laws  are  dated  not  from  the 
day  of  their  drafting,  but  from  that  on  which  they  are  enacted  and  signed. 

»  This  tract  may  be  found  in  LDS,  24:  257  seq.,  and  Walch,  15:  58  seq. 


428  APPENDIXES 

« 

as  mad  dogs.  From  this  it  is  quite  apparent  what  they  had  in  their 
false  minds,  and  that  what  they  put  forth  under  the  name  of  the  Gospel 
in  the  Twelve  Articles  has  become  vain  pretenses.  In  short,  they 
practice  mere  devil's  work,  especially  that  arch-devil  who  reigns  at  Miihl- 
hausen,  who  indulges  in  nothing  else  than  robbery,  murder  and  blood- 
shed; hence,  Christ  in  John  8  :  44  says  concerning  him  that  he  is  a  mur- 
derer from  the  beginning.  Since,  therefore,  those  peasants  and  miserable 
wretches  willingly  go  astray  and  act  differently  from  what  they  declared, 
I  likewise  must  write  differently  concerning  them;  and  first  bring  their 
sins  before  their  eyes  as  God  commands  (Isa.  58  : 1  ;  Eze.  2:7),  whether 
perchance  some  might  know  themselves  and  accordingly  submit  to  secular 
authority  as  they  ought.  With  three-fold  horrible  sins  against  God 
and  men  have  these  peasants  loaded  themselves,  for  which  they  have 
deserved  a  manifold  death  of  body  and  soul. 

First,  they  have  sworn  to  their  true  and  gracious  rulers  to  be  submis- 
sive and  obedient,  hi  accord  with  God's  command  (Matt.  22  :  21),  "Ren- 
der unto  Caesar  the  things  that  are  Caesar's,"  and  (Rom.  13  : 1),  "Let 
every  soul  be  subject  unto  the  higher  powers."  But  since  they  have 
deliberately  and  with  outrage  abandoned  obedience,  and  in  addition  have 
opposed  their  lords,  they  have  thereby  forfeited  body  and  soul,  as  per- 
fidious, perjured,  mendacious,  disobedient,  rascals  and  villains  are  wont 
to  do.  Wherefore  St.  Paul  judges  them,  saying  (Rom.  13  : 2),  "And 
they  that  resist  shall  receive  to  themselves  condemnation. "  The  peasants 
will  incur  this  sentence,  be  it  sooner  or  later,  for  God  will  keep  truth  and 
pledge. 

Second,  they  cause  uproar,  outrageously  rob  and  pillage  monasteries 
and  castles  not  belonging  to  them.  For  this  alone,  as  public  highway- 
men and  murderers,  they  deserve  a  two-fold  death  of  body  and  soul. 
It  is  right  and  lawful  to  slay  at  the  first  opportunity  a  rebellious  person, 
known  as  such,  already  under  God  and  the  Emperor's  ban.  For  of  a 
public  rebel,  every  man  is  both  judge  and  executioner.  Just  as,  when  a 
fire  starts,  he  who  can  extinguish  it  first  is  the  best  fellow.  Rebellion  is 
not  a  vile  murder,  but  like  a  great  fire  that  kindles  and  devastates  a  coun- 
try; hence  uproar  carries  with  it  a  land  full  of  murder,  bloodshed,  makes 
widows  and  orphans,  and  destroys  everything,  like  the  greatest  calamity. 
Therefore,  whosoever  can  should  smite,  strangle  and  stab,  secretly  or 
publicly,  and  should  remember  that  there  is  nothing  more  poisonous, 
pernicious  and  devilish  than  a  rebellious  man.  Just  as  when  one  must 
slay  a  mad  dog;  fight  him  not  and  he  will  fight  you,  and  a  whole  country 
with  you. 

Third,  they  screen  such  frightful  and  horrible  sins  with  the  Gospel, 
call  themselves  Christian  brethren,  swear  allegiance  and  oath  and  com- 
pel people  to  join  them  in  such  cruelties.  Thereby  they  become  the 
greatest  blasphemers  and  violators  of  God's  holy  name,  and  serve  and 
honor  the  devil  under  the  semblance  of  the  Gospel,  so  that  they  have  ten 
times  deserved  death  of  body  and  soul,  for  I  never  heard  of  more  detestable 
sins.  And  I  believe  also  that  the  devil  perceives  the  judgment  day,  that 
he  undertakes  such  an  unheard-of  job.  As  if  he  said,  "It  is  the  last," 
therefore  he  should  be  and  will  his  worst  to  stir  the  dregs  and  entirely 
clear  the  ground.  May  the  Lord  restrain  him!  Lo,  how  mighty  a 
prince  the  devil  is,  how  he  has  the  world  in  his  hands  and  can  put  it  to 


APPENDIXES  429 

confusion,  who  can  so  soon  capture  so  many  thousands  of  peasants,  lead 
them  astray,  harden  and  rouse  them,  and  is  able  to  make  them  willing 
executioners  of  his  malice.  It  is  no  excuse  for  these  peasants  to  plead 
1  Mo.  1  :  23,  2  :  5,  maintaining  that  all  things  were  created  free  and 
common,  and  that  all  of  us  were  baptized  in  like  manner.  For  in  the 
New  Testament  Moses  has  no  place;  there  our  Lord  and  Master  stands, 
and  casts  us  with  body  and  goods  under  the  superiors  and  civil  law,  as 
he  says  (Matt.  22  :  2)  "Render  unto  Caesar  the  things  that  are  Ca?sar's." 
So  also  says  St.  Paul  (Rom.  13  :  1)  to  all  baptized  Christians,  "Let  every 
soul  be  subject  unto  the  higher  powers."  And  thus  likewise  St.  Peter 
enjoins  (1  Pet.  2  :  13),  "Submit  yourselves  to  every  ordinance  of  man  for 
the  Lord's  sake."  This  teaching  of  Christ  we  are  bound  to  live  up  to, 
since  the  Father  commanded  from  heaven,  saying,  "This  is  my  beloved 
Son,  hear  him."  (Matt.  17  :  5;  Mark  9:7;  Luke  9  :  35.) 

Now  baptism  does  not  make  free  body  and  goods,  but  soul.  Moreover 
the  Gospel  does  not  aim  at  a  community  of  goods,  though  such  as  desire 
this  may  have  it,  like  the  apostles  and  disciples  (cf .  Acts  4  :  32)  who  did 
not  demand  that  the  goods  of  Pilate  or  Herod  should  be  common,  as 
our  senseless  peasants  rage,  but  their  own  goods.  But  our  peasants  would 
have  the  goods  of  others  common,  and  keep  their  own  for  themselves; 
these  are  indeed  fine  Christians!  I  deem  that  there  is  no  more  devil  in 
hell,  but  he  has  altogether  rushed  into  the  peasants;  their  rage  is  excessive 
and  beyond  all  measure. 

Since,  therefore,  the  peasants  have  thus  incurred  the  wrath  of  God 
and  men,  and  are  already  guilty  of  a  manifold  death  of  both  body  and 
soul,  since  they  are  despisers  of  right  and  law  and  do  continue  in  using 
violence,  I  must  inform  secular  authority  how  with  good  conscience  it 
ought  to  deal  with  them.  First,  if  the  civil  government  thinks  proper 
to  smite  and  punish  those  peasants  without  previous  consideration  of 
right  and  fairness,  I  do  not  condemn  such  action,  although  it  is  not  in 
harmony  with  the  Gospel,  for  it  has  good  right  to  do  this.  Inasmuch 
as  the  peasants  no  longer  fight  for  the  Gospel's  sake,  but  have  become 
rather  faithless,  perjured,  disobedient,  seditious  murderers,  robbers, 
blasphemers,  which  even  a  heathen  government  has  right  and  power  to 
punish — yea,  is  even  bound  to  punish  such  rogues.  Since  for  that  reason 
it  wields  the  sword  and  is  God's  minister  unto  him  who  does  evil.  (Rom.  / 
13  :  4.) 

But  government,  if  it  is  Christian  and  permits  the  Gospel,  since  also 
the  peasants  have  no  pretext  against  it,  they  should  behave  with  awe 
toward  it.  First  of  all  we  should  depend  on  God,  and  confess  that  we 
have  deserved  this  calamity,  and  recognize  that  God  has  perhaps  sent  . 
the  devil  for  the  general  punishment  of  the  German  nation.  Therefore 
we  ought  humbly  to  ask  God  for  help  against  the  devil.  For  we  do  not 
only  wrestle  against  flesh  and  blood,  but  against  evil  spirits  and  powers 
in  the  air,  which  must  be  attacked  with  prayer  (Eph.  6  :  12,  18).  When 
the  heart  is  set  right  toward  God  so  that  one  lets  his  divine  will  rule, 
whether  he  wishes  or  does  not  wish  us  to  have  princes  and  lords,  we  must 
to  superfluity  oppose  to  these  crazy  peasants  right  and  justice,  even  if 
they  are  not  worthy  of  it.  Thereafter,  if  this  will  not  avail,  hasten  to 
grasp  the  sword. 

For  a  prince  or  lord  must  remember  that  he  is  God's  steward  and  the 


430  APPENDIXES 

executor  of  his  wrath  (Rom.  13  :  4),  the  sword  is  committed  to  him  for 
such  villains,  and  that  he  sins  just  as  greatly  against  God,  if  he  does  not 
punish  and  restrain,  as  one  to  whom  the  sword  has  not  been  entrusted  if 
he  murders.  For  when  he  can  punish  and  does  not,  should  there  be  in 
consequence  murder  or  bloodshed  he  is  guilty  of  all  the  murder  and  evil 
that  such  rascals  commit;  since  he  voluntarily,  through  neglect  of  his 
divine  charge,  permits  such  baseness  to  be  done,  therefore  he  much  in- 
creases it  and  is  guilty.  Therefore  let  him  not  sleep!  Nor  show  mercy 
and  compassion.  Nay,  this  is  the  time  of  sword  and  wrath,  not  the  time 
of  mercy. 

Let  the  civil  power  press  on  confidently  and  strike  as  long  as  it  can 
move  a  muscle.  For  here  is  the  advantage:  the  peasants  have  bad 
consciences  and  unlawful  goods,  and  whenever  a  peasant  is  killed  there- 
fore he  has  lost  body  and  soul,  and  goes  forever  to  the  devil.  Civil 
authority,  however,  has  a  clean  conscience  and  lawful  goods,  and  can  say 
to  God  with  all  security  of  heart :  "  Behold,  my  God,  thou  hast  appointed 
me  prince  or  lord,  of  that  I  cannot  doubt,  and  hast  entrusted  me  with 
the  sword  against  evil  doers  (Rom.  13  :  4).  It  is  thy  word  and  may  not 
lie;  therefore  I  must  fulfil  my  duty  or  lose  thy  grace.  It  is  plain  that 
these  peasants  have '  deserved  a  manifold  death,  from  thee  and  from 
the  world,  and  me  thou  hast  commanded  to  punish  them.  Wiliest  thou 
now  to  let  me  perish  through  them,  and  to  take  away  from  me  the  rule, 
and  to  let  me  be  destroyed?  Well,  then!  thy  will  be  done;  let  me  die 
then,  and  go  in  thy  trust  and  word,  and  be  found  in  obedience  to  thy 
trust  and  my  duty.  Therefore  I  will  punish  and  smite  as  long  as  I  can 
move  a  muscle;  thou  wilt  judge  and  approve. " 

Therefore  it  can  come  to  pass  that  he  who  will  be  slain  on  the  side  of 
civil  government,  may  be  a  real  martyr  before  God,  if  he  fights  in  such 
conscience  as  has  been  said.  For  he  goes  in  the  divine  word  and  obedience. 
On  the  contrary,  whoever  shall  perish  on  the  side  of  the  peasants  is  an 
eternal  hell-brand.  For  he  wields  the  sword  against  God's  word  and 
obedience,  and  is  a  limb  of  the  devil. 

And  should  it  seem  likely  that  the  peasants  prevail  (may  God  for- 
bid)— for  all  things  are  possible  to  God,  and  we  do  not  know  whether  he 
may  not  be  at  the  beginning  of  the  judgment  day,  which  will  not  be  far 
off;  he  may  purpose  through  the  devil  to  destroy  all  order  and  authority, 
and  turn  the  world  into  a  wild  chaos — then  will  he  safely  go  to  ruin  with 
a  good  conscience  who  shall  be  found  in  his  sword-duty,  and  leave  to  the 
devil  the  earthly  kingdom  and  receive  instead  the  eternal  kingdom. 
Such  wonderful  times  are  these  that  a  prince  can  more  easily  win  heaven 
\  by  shedding  blood  than  others  with  prayers. 

Finally  there  is  one  more  point  worthy  of  consideration  by  the  civil 
power.  The  peasants  are  not  satisfied  to  belong  to  the  devil  themselves, 
but  they  force  and  urge  many  pious  people  unwillingly  to  join  their  devil- 
ish union  (Bund),  and  make  them  thus  partners  in  their  wickedness 
and  condemnation.  For  whosoever  joins  them  goes  with  them  to  the 
devil  and  is  guilty  of  all  the  evil  deeds  they  commit;  and  must  do  so  be- 
cause he  is  of  so  weak  faith  that  he  cannot  withstand.  A  hundred  deaths 
should  a  pious  Christian  suffer  ere  he  yields  a  hair's  breadth  in  this  peas- 
ant's business.  Oh,  many  can  become  martyrs  now  through  these  blood- 
thirsty peasants  and  prophets  of  murder! 


APPENDIXES  431 

Now  on  such  captives  among  the  peasants  the  civil  authority  should 
have  mercy;  and  if  besides  they  have  no  goods,  if  they  cheerfully  let  the 
sword  take  its  course  against  the  peasants,  and  risk  their  own  body  and 
fortune,  then  are  these  reasons  more  than  enough  why  one  should  save 
and  help  such  souls,  who  through  the  peasants  have  been  driven  into  such 
a  devilish  confederacy,  and  against  their  wills  must  sin  with  them  so 
horribly  and  be  condemned.  For  such  souls  are  [going]  straight  for 
purgatory,  yea,  to  hell  and  devil's  chains. 

Therefore  dear  lords,  redeem  here,  save  here,  help  here,  have  mercy 
on  these  poor  peasants,  stab,  strike,  strangle,  whoever  can.  Remainest 
thou  therefore  dead?  Well  for  you,  for  a  more  pious  death  nevermore 
canst  thou  obtain.  For  thou  diest  in  obedience  to  God's  word  and  to 
duty  (Rom.  13  :  1),  and  in  the  service  of  love,  to  deliver  thy  neighbor 
out  of  hell  and  the  devil's  chains. 

So,  I  pray  you  now,  flee  from  the  peasants  whoever  can,  as  from  the 
devil  himself.  But  those  who  do  not  flee,  I  pray  that  God  would  enlighten 
and  convert  them.  But  those  who  cannot  be  converted,  God  grant  that 
they  may  have  no  fortune  and  success.  Here  every  pious  Christian 
may  say,  Amen!  For  that  the  prayer  is  right  and  good,  and  pleases 
God  well,  that  know  I.  Should  anyone  think  it  too  severe,  let  him  remem- 
ber that  rebellion  is  intolerable,  and  let  him  watch  at  all  hours  for  the 
destruction  of  the  world. 

VI 

THE   PROTEST   AT   SPEYER1 

Most  illustrious  King,  most  venerable,  right  honorable,  noble,  es- 
esteemed,  gracious  Lords,  uncles,  cousins,  friends,  and  especially  esteemed 
ones! 

According  as  we  ourselves  urged  upon  his  Roman  imperial  Majesty, 
our  most  gracious  Lord,  and  wrote  in  a  friendly  manner  to  your  royal 
Highness, — in  most  submissive  obedience  to  his  imperial  Majesty  and  in 
friendly  and  humble  obedience  to  your  royal  Highness,  as  well  as  for  the 
good  of  general  Christendom  and  the  holy  Empire,  we  have  come  hither 
to  this  Diet,  and  have  now  heard  read  the  instructions,  together  with 
the  authoritative  letter  in  his  imperial  Majesty's  name.  Moreover, 
we  have  also  examined  with  diligence  the  Summons  of  this  Diet  in  [the 
name  of]  his  imperial  Majesty,  and  we  find  that  the  affair  has  been  settled 
by  an  embarrassing  device,  that  the  article  in  the  decree  of  the  previously 

1  The  text  followed  is  that  given  by  Ney,  in  his  Geschichte  des  Reichstages  zu 
Speier  im  Jahre  1529  (Hamburg,  1880),  pp.  240-254.  The  protest  will  be  found 
also  in  Walch,  16:  315  seq.  Liberal  extracts  are  given  by  Gieseler,  4:  131.  The 
readings  of  Walch  and  Gieseler  differ  at  many  points  from  the  text  of  Ney,  but 
the  discrepancies  are  not  important,  and  it  has  not  been  thought  worth  while  to 
collate  the  texts.  A  partial  translation  of  the  document  may  be  found  in  Merle 
d'Aubigne,  bk  xiii.,  ch.  vi.  Though  the  protest  itself  bears  date  April  20,  most 
critics  agree  in  making  the  true  date  April  25  (Schaff,  6:  691).  The  author  of 
the  document  is  believed  to  have  been  George  Vogler,  the  chancellor  of  the  Mar- 
grave of  Brandenburg  (Ney,  237).  To  render  its  cumbrous  phrases  and  long  in- 
volved sentences  into  intelligible  English,  without  making  a  mere  paraphrase,  is  a 
most  difficult  task.  A  single  sentence,  and  that  perhaps  not  the  worst,  runs  to 
over  300  words,  and  has  fourteen  relative  and  adverbial  clauses! 


432  APPENDIXES 

held  Diet1  concerning  our  holy  Christian  faith  has  been  annulled,  and 
another  very  troublesome  article  is  to  be  set  forth  instead; 

And  whereas  your  royal  Highness,  and  your  other  colleagues  (having 
authority  as  his  imperial  Majesty),  governors  and  commissioners,  with 
the  estates  of  the  Empire,  at  the  Diet  formerly  held  at  Speyer  unanimously 
agreed  that  pending  a  general  Council  or  national  assembly,  each  one 
should  live,  rule  and  act  regarding  the  clauses  of  the  Edict  of  Worms  as 
every  one  hopes  and  trusts  to  give  account  for  his  conduct  before  God 
and  his  imperial  Majesty.  Moreover,  your  royal  Highness,  together 
with  the  fellow-commissioners  in  the  stead  of  his  imperial  Majesty,  at 
the  adoption  of  the  aforesaid  decree  promised  to  hold  all  and  sundry  (so 
it  stands  written  in  the  said  decree  and  his  imperial  Majesty  may  examine) 
as  fixed  and  inviolable,  to  execute  it,  to  give  prompt  and  unquestioning 
compliance,  to  do  and  permit  nothing  contrary  to  it,  to  live  by  it,  and 
not  permit  anyone  to  do  otherwise  save  at  all  perils; 

And  moreover,  your  lieges,  we  and  other  estates  of  the  Empire,  pub- 
licly proclaimed  in  the  decree  that  each  and  every  point  was  carried  with 
our  entire  knowledge,  consent  and  advice;  also  that  we  all  and  severally 
acquiesced  in  the  same,  and  in  right,  good,  true  and  faithful  manner 
spoke  and  pledged  ourselves  to  hold  every  point  and  article  in  the  decree 
as  true,  fixed,  sound,  upright  and  inviolable,  to  execute  it,  to  comply 
with  it  to  the  best  of  our  ability,  and  to  live  by  it,  without  perils — all 
of  which  is  contained  in  the  aforesaid  decree  in  clear,  explicit  words; 

Therefore,  in  consideration  of  this  previously  settled,  written  and 
sealed  decree,  as  well  as  for  the  following  well-founded  reasons  (which  in 
part  were  sent  in  writing  to  your  royal  Highness  and  the  esteemed  ones 
on  the  12th  day  of  this  month  of  April),  we  cannot  and  may  not  consent 
to  the  annulment  of  the  aforesaid  articles,  to  which  we  unanimously 
agreed  and  which  we  are  pledged  to  uphold,  nor  even  to  the  supposed  or 
intended  moderation  of  the  same,  which  yet  is  nothing  of  the  sort. 

For  the  first  of  our  well-founded  reasons,  we  therefore  think  it  beyond 
question  that  his  imperial  Majesty — as  an  honorable,  upright  and  Chris- 
tian Emperor,  our  most  gracious  Lord — and  the  majority  also  of  you, 
the  other  princes,  having  once  agreed  in  mind  and  will,  pledged,  written 
and  sealed,  would  no  less  than  we  hold  [the  decree]  to  the  letter  as  per- 
petual, fixed  and  inviolable,  execute  it  and  not  scruple  at  anything  therein, 
neither  be  nor  act  against  it.  Therein  we  desire  and  seek  honor,  praise, 
forbearance  and  justice,  not  only  our  own  but  first  of  all  his  imperial 
Majesty's,  and  for  all  of  us. 

As  to  others,  we  do  not  know  in  what  way  to  answer  such  with  a 
good  conscience  toward  Almighty  God  as  the  sole  Lord,  Ruler  and  Up- 
holder of  our  holy  Christian  saving  faith,  as  well  as  toward  his  imperial 
Majesty  as  a  Christian  Emperor. 

For  although  we  know  that  our  ancestors,  brothers  and  we,  all  that 
we  ourselves  were  in  duty  bound  to  do,  in  due  obedience  to  the  deceased 
and  now  reigning  Roman  imperial  Majesties,  all  that  might  ever  have 
promoted  the  honor,  welfare  and  interests  of  his  imperial  Majesty  and 
the  Empire — that,  with  all  true,  ready  and  willing  submission  we  have 
always  done,  in  such  manner  as  we,  without  boasting  and  without  dis- 

1  This  refers  to  the  Diet  at  Speyer  in  1526,  as  the  next  paragraph  shows.    The 
decree  is  given  in  Walch's,  16:  266  seq. 


APPENDIXES  433 

paragement  of  others,  never  knew  anybody  before  to  give.  As  moreover, 
without  sparing  body  or  goods,  we  will  willingly  and  obediently  do  hence- 
forth till  our  end  and  grave,  with  the  help  of  divine  grace,  in  all  due  and 
practicable  things  toward  Roman  imperial  Majesty,  as  our  most  gracious 
Lord, — also  toward  your  royal  Highness  and  lieges,  as  our  dear  and 
gracious  lords,  uncles,  cousins,  friends  and  other  Estates  of  the  holy  Roman 
Empire,  have  kindly,  graciously  and  impartially  willed  and  inclined 
to  do. 

Yet  there  are  nevertheless  such  things  as  concern  the  glory  of  God 
and  the  welfare  and  salvation  of  the  souls  of  every  one  of  us ;  as  to  these, 
by  the  command  of  God,  for  the  sake  of  our  consciences,  we  are  in  bap- 
tism and  moreover  in  his  holy  divine  word,  pledged  and  bound  to  hold 
before  all  our  Lord  and  God  as  highest  King  and  Lord  of  lords.  Our 
undoubting  confidence  is  that  your  royal  Highness  and  princes  will  there- 
fore kindly  hold  us  excused  in  respect  to  the  things  in  which  we  are  not 
at  one  with  your  Highness,  princes  and  others.  Nor  in  such  things  will 
we  obey  the  majority,  for  the  reason  that  we  hold  them  in  conformity  to 
the  former  imperial  decree  at  Speyer,  which  by  a  unanimous  consent 
(and  not  by  a  majority  only)  was  then  decided.  Wherefore  also,  such 
a  unanimous  vote  cannot  and  may  not  be  altered  with  honor,  reason  and 
justice,  except  by  unanimous  consent.  Besides  also,  in  matters  concern- 
ing the  honor  of  God,  the  welfare  and  salvation  of  our  souls,  each  stand 
for  himself  and  must  give  account  before  God.  Therefore  in  this  sphere 
no  one  can  make  it  another's  duty  to  do  or  decide  less  or  more,  which 
one  is  not  bound  to  do  for  other  honest,  well-founded  and  good  reasons. 

So  that  your  Highness,  princes  and  others,  each  and  all  whom  this 
transaction  might  affect,  have  our  complaint  to  hear  once  more  and 
exactly,  so  that  it  is  open  as  the  day  and  not  to  be  questioned:  that, 
concerning  the  doctrine  of  our  Christian  religion  there  has  been  for  a 
long  time  hitherto  discord  over  many  points  and  articles.  Whence  such 
discord  proceeded,  that  God  knows  first  of  all,  to  whose  judgment  we 
commit  all  things.  But  it  confessedly  arose  in  part  at  the  Diet  of  Nurn- 
berg  [1522],  through  the  papal  legate,  in  consequence  of  his  solicitation 
and  orders  then  made  and  delivered;  likewise  besides  through  many 
electors,  princes  and  other  estates  of  the  Empire,  who  at  least  in  part 
are  of  your  party.  So  then,  at  the  aforesaid  Diet  of  Nurnberg,  all  our 
grievances  were  set  forth  by  the  temporal  estates  of  the  Empire  in  eighty 
articles,  and  delivered  to  the  said  papal  legate,  and  likewise  afterward 
appeared  in  print.1  Nevertheless  the  same  grievances  are  not  yet 
abolished,  and  yet  many  more  of  them  are  before  our  eyes. 

And  it  has  always  been  considered  at  all  Diets,  that  a  fitting  limit  for 
this  matter  could  not  be  found,  unless  a  free  ecumenical,  Christian  coun- 
cil, or  at  least  national  assembly,  should  be  held  as  soon  as  possible.  And 
this  we  now  declare,  in  order  that  your  Highness,  princes,  and  the  others, 
each  and  every  one,  may  judge  from  this  and  may  yourselves  appoint 
when  it  seems  right  or  proper  for  one  party  to  seek  before  a  free,  Christian, 

1  This  is  the  document  commonly  known  as  the  Centum  Gravamina,  the  original 
eighty  articles  having  been  expanded  into  a  hundred.  A  summary  of  this  inter- 
esting document  is  given  by  Hausser,  Period  of  the  Reformation,  p.  70;  and  all  the 
important  articles  may  be  found,  either  in  Lord  Herbert's  Henry  VIII,  pp.  125-133, 
or  in  Foxe,  Acts  and  Monuments,  4:  308-314.  The  full  document  in  German  is 
in  Walch,  15:  2146. 


434  APPENDIXES 

general  Council  approval  or  condemnation  of  the  doctrine  which  it  holds 
as  Christian.  These  matters  cannot  be  so  fully  and  formally  discussed 
and  treated  by  presidents,  commissioners,  orators,  appointed  by  his 
imperial  Majesty,  or  by  electors,  princes  and  other  estates  of  the  Empire, 
as  by  the  said  Council.  Nor  could  the  discordant  and  doubtful  doctrines 
and  practices,  of  which  they  themselves  are  now  not  certain,  be  heard 
and  decided. 

Moreover  that  such  things  would  now  be  imposed  on  us,  not  silently 
but  openly,  it  is  easy  to  understand  from  the  following  account: 

For  thus  have  several  in  Committee  first  proposed  to  you,  and  on  the 
10th  day  of  this  month  of  April  it  was  read  a  second  time;  likewise  in 
several  other  points  have  they  set  forth  changed  ideas,  that  the  electors 
themselves,  princes  and  other  estates  (among  whom  we  equally,  dear 
princes  and  others,  were  included  and  intended)  now  had  decided  here 
with  one  another:  that  those  who  thus  far  abide  by  the  formerly  estab- 
lished imperial  Edict l  now  henceforth  continue  by  the  self-same  Edict 
until  the  next  Council,  and  their  subjects  ought  to  propose  to  hold  there- 
to, etc.  That  does  not  hold  us,  as  it  does  them,  to  such  Edict  in  all  points 
with  good  conscience,  nor  may  we  execute  it,  [for  this  would  be]  in  the 
highest  degree  burdensome.  And  we  should  have  nothing  to  answer 
before  God,  should  anybody,  of  high  or  lower  rank,  through  our  mutual 
decision  separate  from  the  doctrine  which  from  the  fundamental  counsel 
of  the  eternal  word  of  God  we  consider  without  doubt  to  be  godly  and 
Christian,  and  against  our  own  conscience,  as  we  have  said  above,  should 
come  under  the  said  Edict. 

But  we  understand  ourselves  not  at  all  to  call  in  question  what  your 
Highness,  or  any  of  you  princes  and  the  others,  outside  of  our  announced 
joint  agreement  or  resolution,  in  conformity  with  the  Edict  or  otherwise, 
shall  hold  each  for  himself  and  with  his  [subjects].  But  we  shall  daily 
and  heartily  beseech  God  that  he  will  give  divine  grace  to  each  and  all  of 
us,  that  he  may  enlighten  us  with  right,  true  knowledge,  that  he  will 
give  his  Holy  Spirit  to  lead  us  into  all  truth;  through  which  we  may  come 
with  unanimity  to  a  just,  true,  life-attaining,  saving  Christian  faith, 
through  Christ,  our  only  Mercy-seat,  Mediator,  Advocate  and  Saviour. 
Amen. 

For  according  as  discord  is  evident  before  our  eyes,  and  through  the 
opposition  of  parties  it  is  known  that  it  has  sprung  from  that  cause,  also 
by  the  aforementioned  opposition  it  has  become  established  so  that 
doctrines  are  contested  among  us  in  many  articles  touched  upon  in  the 
imperial  Edict,  each  and  all  may  easily  conclude,  if  we  should  agree 
with  your  Highness,  princes  and  the  rest  in  the  belief  comprised  [in  the 
Edict],  as  a  result  it  would  be  enjoined  on  us  that,  against  our  own  con- 
sciences, we  ourselves  should  now  condemn  as  unjust  the  doctrines  that 
we  have  thus  far  held  to  be  unquestionably  Christian  and  still  think  to 
be  such,  as  long  as  we  agree  that  the  imperial  Edict  against  them  shall 
have  force. 

Which  then  besides  will  be  more  clearly  perceived  from  the  appended 

clause  to  be  a  contradiction;  which  also  reads:     "And  again,  in  the 

other  states,  in  which  the  other  doctrines  arose,  and  in  part  might  not 

be  suppressed  without  noticeable  disturbances,  complaints  and  perils, 

1  The  reference  here  is  to  the  Edict  of  Worms,  and  so  in  the  following  paragraphs. 


APPENDIXES  435 

yet  henceforth  all  further  innovations  shall  be  prevented,  so  far  as  is 
humanly  possible,  until  the  coming  Council, "  etc.  So  then  each  and  all 
might  therefrom  argue,  if  we  had  known  through  such  an  Edict  that  our 
Christian  doctrine,  belief  and  attitude  were  so  erroneous,  though  they 
might  be  established  without  marked  disturbance,  complaints  and  perils, 
that  it  should  seem  reasonable  for  us  at  least  implicitly  to  admit  that  we 
have  articles  in  our  faith  either  not  well  grounded,  or  else  unnecessary. 
But  the  one  (though  we  shall  be  otherwise  instructed  at  the  coming  Coun- 
cil or  in  some  other  way  by  the  holy,  pure,  divine,  biblical  Scripture)  at 
the  present  time  we  do  not  at  all  know  how  to  say  or  do.  As  to  the  other, 
if  not  only  implicitly  but  openly  we  deny  our  Lord  and  Saviour  'Christ 
•and  his  holy  Word,  which  beyond  all  doubt  we  hold  to  be  pure,  clear, 
clean  and  right,  and  do  not  confess  that  he  has  redeemed  us  from  sin, 
death,  the  devil  and  hell,  it  will  give  the  Lord  Christ  ground  also  to  deny 
us  before  his  Heavenly  Father,  as  he  terribly  threatens  in  the  Gospel  all 
who  do  not  openly  and  freely  confess  before  men  him  and  his  holy  Word. 
Thus  the  true  confession  consists  not  in  empty  words  alone,  but  in  deed,  as 
may  be  further  proved  without  difficulty. 

Every  Christian  gentleman  can  without  difficulty  think  and  under- 
stand to  what  damnable  vexation  and  ruin  such  a  course  would  lead,  not 
only  among  our  own  Christian  good-hearted  subjects,  but  among  those 
of  the  opposite  party,  if  they  heard  that  we  had  agreed  with  you  that  you 
should  abide  by  the  Edict  and  your  subjects  also  hold  thereto.  So, 
though  Almighty  God  should  illumine  anyone  by  the  knowledge  of  his 
only  saving  Word,  we  should  not  dare  to  accept  the  same.  As  also  some 
magistrates  of  your  party  might  understand,  by  that  to  make  excuse  for 
their  subjects,  that  had  we  made  such  an  agreement  with  you,  so  there- 
fore they  must  hold  and  do. 

Should  we  also  agree  with  you,  that  those  who  up  to  this  time  have 
stood  by  the  Edict  should  henceforth  abide  by  it  until  the  coming  Coun- 
-cil,  etc.,  we  should  acknowledge  not  only  that  the  opinion  of  your  party 
is  right,  but  also  that  the  Edict  is  still  hi  existence.  Nevertheless,  it 
was  suspended  and  annulled  by  the  decree  of  the  former  Diet  of  Speyer; 
so  that  every  State  in  the  Empire,  in  such  matters  as  concern  the  Edict, 
may  live  and  rule  for  itself  and  its  people  as  it  hopes  to  answer  for  itself, 
first  of  all  before  God  and  his  imperial  Majesty.  Therefore  we  cannot  let 
ourselves  be  longer  burdened  with  such  an  unmerited  yoke  of  the  Edict. 

We  have  no  doubt  also,  should  this  not  be  the  will  of  his  imperial 
Majesty,  that  we  shall,  as  we  hope  and  trust,  give  a  true,  sound  answer 
for  our  doctrines,  lives,  governments,  conduct  and  actions  regarding  such 
matters,  before  Almighty  God  and  his  imperial  Majesty,  as  a  Christian 
Emperor. 

So  with  reference  to  the  articles  touching  the  masses,1  there  is  the 
same  and  much  more  trouble.  For  we  have  no  doubt  that  you  have  heard 

1  The  article  of  the  proposed  decree  above  referred  to  was  as  follows:  "And 
especially  sundry  doctrines  and  sects,  so  many  as  are  opposed  to  the  venerable 
sacrament  of  the  body  and  blood  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  German  nation 
shall  not  receive  among  the  States  of  the  holy  Empire,  nor  hereafter  openly  favor 
or  permit  them  to  preach;  in  like  manner  they  shall  not  do  away  with  the  services 
of  the  holy  mass;  also  no  one,  in  the  places  where  the  new  doctrines  have  got  the 
upper  hand,  shall  forbid  or  hinder  the  celebration  or  hearing  of  mass,  or  persecute 
therefor."  The  full  text  of  the  decree  is  in  Walch,  16:  328  seq. 


436  APPENDIXES 

how  our  ministers  attacked  and  completely  refuted  the  papal  masses, 
with  holy,  divine,  invincible,  constant  Scripture;  how  also,  on  the  other 
hand,  they  have  justified  the  noble,  precious  Supper  of  our  dear  Lord  and 
Saviour,  Jesus  Christ  (as  the  evangelical  mass  is  called)  according  to  the 
appointment  and  example  of  Christ,  our  only  Master,  and  the  usage  of 
his  holy  Apostles.  Should  we  now  uphold  or  consent  to  such  a  resolu- 
tion as  has  been  arranged  in  the  Committee  concerning  the  Mass,  it 
might  again  be  understood  as  nothing  else  than  that  we  helped  to  con- 
demn the  teaching  of  our  ministers  as  erroneous  in  this  particular,  as 
well  as  in  the  preceding  matter,  which,  however,  through  the  bestowal 
of  the  grace  of  God,  is  not  at  all  in  our  mind,  and  cannot  take  place  with 
good  conscience.  Your  Highness,  princes,  and  the  others,  yes,  each  and 
every  one,  should  likewise  well  consider  that,  if  we  be  allowed  to  hold 
in  our  provinces  different,  opposing  masses,  even  though  the  papal  mass 
were  not  contrary  to  God  and  to  his  holy  Word  (which  nevertheless  may 
never  more  be  maintained),  still,  such  a  state  of  things  would  bring  about 
contention,  tumult,  revolt  and  every  misfortune  among  people  in  general, 
and  especially  among  those  who  have  a  proper  zeal  for  the  honor  and  name 
of  God,  and  would  not  at  all  promote  peace  or  unity. 

But  as  to  what  the  aforesaid  papal  masses  mean,  and  how  the  report 
concerning  the  same  must  be  understood,  we  have  easily  perceived  that 
the  said  report  is  intended  only  for  the  places  where  the  other  doctrines 
arose,  and  not  at  all  for  your  magistrates  and  districts.  And  therefore 
it  not  unreasonably  surprises  us  that  you  propose  that  we  and  others 
adhering  to  this  doctrine  (that  is,  the  clear,  pure  word  of  God)  should 
set  up  a  standard  in  behalf  of  our  subjects  and  establish  order  and  regula- 
tion in  our  cities,  towns  and  provinces.  This  you  would  not  be  at  all 
willing  to  suffer,  as  we  think,  if  the  conditions  were  reversed.  And  you 
should  be  much  less  opposed  to  this — that  we  and  our  subjects  in  pur 
provinces  unanimously  make  use  of  the  Supper  of  Christ,  as  the  evangelical 
mass,  alone  founded  on  divine  Scripture,  according  to  the  institution  of 
our  Saviour,  Jesus  Christ — than  that  you  should  against  your  will  be 
required  to  suppress  in  your  states  and  towns  the  papal  masses  or  any 
similar  thing,  that  is  contrary  to  the  divine  appointment  and  the  usage 
of  the  holy  Apostles,  and  is  founded  only  on  the  fables  and  devices  of 
men. 

On  that  account  and  because  the  doctrine  of  our  party  has  been  estab- 
lished in  our  dominions  with  divine,  invincible  Scripture,  directed  against 
the  papal  masses  in  the  aforementioned  ways,  and  such  an  article  is  not 
the  least  that  it  will  be  necessary  to  treat  in  a  Christian  Council;  (more- 
over, seeing  that  neither  the  Summons  to  this  Diet,  which  is  later  in  date 
than  the  aforementioned  official  letter  and  the  Instruction,  nor  the  Instruc- 
tion as  read,  mention  anything  of  this  or  other  similar  articles)  we  have 
therefore  been  not  at  all  mistaken  in  holding  fast  to  the  same,  in  accord- 
ance with  our  hitherto  oft-announced  declaration  and  our  Christian 
remonstrance. 

Although  it  is  plainly  manifest  what  we  permit  to  be  preached  in 
our  dominions  concerning  the  holy  sacrament  of  the  body  and  blood  of 
our  Lord  and  Saviour,  Jesus  Christ;  nevertheless,  for  manifold  considera- 
tions and  good  Christian  reasons,  we  hold  it  to  be  improper  and  unprofit- 
able that  such  an  ordinance  in  behalf  of  the  doctrine  (or  against  it)  as 


APPENDIXES  437 

the  report  contemplates,  should  be  passed  by  this  Diet,  since  his  imperial 
Majesty's  Summons  makes  no  mention  of  it,  nor  were  those1  to  whom 
these  clauses  apply  either  summoned  or  heard.  And  it  will  indeed  be 
well  to  consider,  if  such  an  important  article  be  undertaken  independently 
of  the  Council,  to  what  forbearance  and  injustice  such  a  course  might 
bring  his  imperial  Majesty  your  royal  highness,  princes  and  other  Estates 
of  the  Empire. 

Likewise,  as  it  was  further  set  forth  in  the  Committee's  report,  that 
the  minister  should  preach  and  teach  the  holy  Gospel  according  to  the 
interpretation  of  Scripture  approved  and  received  by  the  holy  Christian 
Church, — that  would  pass  very  well  if  all  parties  were  agreed  as  to  what 
is  the  true,  holy  Christian  Church.  But  so  long  as  there  is  great  conten- 
tion about  this,  and  there  is  no  certain  preaching  of  doctrine,  then  [we 
purpose]  to  abide  by  the  word  of  God  alone,  since  indeed  according 
to  the  command  of  God  nothing  else  shall  be  preached,  and  to  make 
clear  and  explain  one  text  of  holy,  divine  Scripture  by  another;  as 
indeed  this  same  holy,  divine  Scripture,  in  all  things  needful  for  Chris- 
tian men  to  know,  will  be  found  in  itself  clear  and  bright  enough  to 
illumine  all  darkness.  Therefore  we  purpose,  with  the  grace  and  help 
of  God,  to  abide  by  it  to  the  end,  that  only  the  word  of  God  and  the  holy 
Gospel  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  as  contained  in  the  biblical  books, 
shall  be  preached  clearly  and  purely,  and  nothing  that  is  against  it.  For 
with  that,  as  the  one  truth  and  the  correct  rule  of  all  Christian  doctrine 
and  life,  no  one  can  err  or  fail,  and  whoso  builds  on  it  and  endures  shall 
prevail  against  all  the  gates  of  hell.  Nevertheless,  on  the  other  hand,  all 
human  additions  and  trifles  shall  fail,  and  cannot  stand  before  God. 

But  that  the  aforementioned  report  is  not  conducive  to.  the  main- 
tenance of  peace  and  unity  in  the  Empire  pending  the  coming  Council, 
but  is  directly  opposed  to  it,  is  clearly  to  be  perceived  from  this,  that  in 
the  first  clause  it  had  been  arranged  that  those  who  up  to  this  time  abide 
by  the  imperial  Edict,  now  henceforth  also  shall  and  will  so  continue; 
and  no  distinction  was  made  therein  as  to  what  and  how  far  such  obliga- 
tion to  the  penalties  of  the  said  Edict  should  extend — for  it  cannot  other- 
wise be  understood  in  the  ordinary  meaning  of  the  words. 

As  then,  it  already  happens  to  some  of  our  clergy  from  other  magis- 
trates, under  color  of  said  Edict — because  they  for  the  sake  of  their 
consciences,  founded  on  the  word  of  God,  do  not  hold  in  conformity  with 
the  Edict — that  they  [these  magistrates]  have  ventured,  in  spite  of  the 
decree  of  the  former  Diet  of  Speyer,  to  bring  these  our  own  subjects  under 
the  jurisdiction  of  other  courts,  and  apart  from  and  contrary  to  justice, 
forcibly  to  take  and  withhold  their  tithes,  rent,  interest,  tribute,  debt, 
inheritance  and  other  things.  And  it  is  well  to  take  heed,  what  other 
acts  of  a  similar  character  might  be  undertaken  under  the  same  assumed 
pretext,  and  give  reason  for  retaliation;  which  in  any  case  would  contribute 
little  or  nothing  to  the  maintenance  of  peace  and  unity; — to  say  nothing 
of  anyone  of  your  party  venturing,  under  pretext  of  the  Edict  and  the 
ban  and  double-ban  intended  as  the  penalty  of  the  same,  to  act  violently 
against  us  or  any  of  our  party,  and  attempting  to  compel  us  to  do  that 
which  is  against  God,  his  holy  Word,  our  souls  and  good  conscience. 

1  The  allusion  is  to  the  Sacramentarians,  or  Zwinglians,  who  were  intended  to 
be  condemned  in  the  articles  on  Masses,  already  quoted. 


438  APPENDIXES 

But  every  one  can  well  consider  what  a  Christian  magistrate  will  be  bound 
to  do  in  such  a  case,  for  the  maintenance  of  God's  Word,  and  for  the  souls, 
bodies,  lives  and  property  of  himself  and  his  subjects,  for  freedom,  defence 
and  protection.  Therefore  it  is  always  reasonable  in  such  a  case  to  stand 
fast  by  the  article  in  the  former  decree  of  the  Diet  of  Speyer;  which,  for 
the  sake  of  peace  and  unity,  as  well  as  for  other  good  Christian  reasons, 
suspends  and  annuls  the  Edict  [of  Worms]. 

And  from  all  of  this,  it  will  now  be  clearly  enough  perceived  and 
openly  proved,  that  the  decree  of  the  former  Diet  of  Speyer  was  of  more 
service  to  peace  and  unity  than  the  report  of  the  aforementioned  article, 
as  such  decree  was  regarded  by  the  electors,  princes  and  all  qther  Estates 
of  the  Empire.  Yet,  in  spite  of  such  a  former,  clear  decree,  wherein  the 
imperial  Edict  is  suspended,  under  the  assumed  pretext  of  the  same,  some 
have  not  scrupled  forcibly  to  take  and  detain  the  property  of  our  subjects. 
What  then  may  we  now  expect  from  our  opponents,  or  part  of  them  at 
any  rate,  but  ill-will,  dispute,  strife,  and  no  peace,  if  the  door  of  the  Edict 
should  again  be  opened  to  them,  as  the  aforesaid  report  contemplates, 
and  the  former  decree  of  Speyer  be  abandoned? 

Likewise  your  royal  Highness,  princes  and  the  others,  if  the  afore- 
mentioned article  becomes  established,  cannot  maintain  that  through  it 
the  former  decree  of  the  imperial  Diet  is  not  annulled  but  only  made  clear. 
For  it  is  plainly  an  entire  annulment  of  the  former  article,  and  it  could 
no  longer  be  granted  to  all  the  Christian  states  of  the  Empire  that  they 
might  conduct  themselves  in  all  cases  according  to  the  word  of  God  and 
their  right  good  consciences,  as  for  such  things  they  hope  and  trust  to 
answer  well  before  God  and  his  imperial  Majesty.  And  with  no  grounds 
may  it  be  said  that  there  are  such  words  as  shall  permit  every  one,  pend- 
ing a  Council,  to  do  everything  according  to  his  own  good  pleasure  and 
choice,  as  some  say  of  it  who  doubtless  do  not  think  or  know  much  of 
the  just  and  severe  judgment  of  God,  to  which  such  answer  first  of  all 
belongs. 

We  desire  also  to  say  to  every  one  who  thinks  to  silence  us,  if  the  often- 
mentioned  imperial  decree  should  be  misused  by  us,  we  hereby  fully 
submit  ourselves  to  all  deaths  by  which  it  commonly  belongs  to  us  to 
suffer  justice  and  equity.  And  we  likewise  have  no  objection,  if  at  any 
time  one  is  apprehensive  that  the  aforesaid  article  might  be  made  a  cover 
for  a  new,  unchristian  doctrine,  that  he  should  explain  it — just  as  we 
with  the  permission  of  your  Grace  and  the  others,  have  set  forth  an  im- 
partial Christian  explanation  and  given  it  to  the  Committee.  But  it 
should  not,  as  your  first  draft  contemplated,  be  entirely  annulled  in  its 
true  substance,  but  remain  according  to  the  letter,  in  honor  and  force. 

And  since  we  have  in  his  Roman  imperial  Majesty,  as  a  Christian 
Emperor  and  our  most  gracious  Lord,  entire,  unfailing  and  comforting 
confidence,  if  the  business  were  reported  with  good  grounds  to  his  imperial 
Majesty,  his  imperial  Majesty  would  have  permitted  nothing  to  be  set 
in  motion  in  addition  to  what  is  contemplated  in  the  Instruction,  as  well 
as  his  imperial  Majesty's  Summons  and  official  letter;  since  we  know 
clearly  enough  nothing  else  can  be  found  that  could  be  treated  in  all 
ways  so  that  peace  and  unity  may  be  maintained  in  the  Empire.  More- 
over, in  all  our  aforementioned  transactions  with  you,  and  in  all  our 
conduct,  we  have  sought  nothing  except  the  honor  of  God  before  all 


APPENDIXES  439 

things,  as  well  as  our  soul's  salvation,  Christian  peace  and  unity.  That 
we  can  and  will  testify  before  Almighty  God,  the  sole  Searcher  and  Knower 
of  all  hearts.  On  that  account  and  if  there  had  been  the  intention  in 
respect  to  the  aforesaid  article,  to  abide  in  the  proper  way  by  the  Instruc- 
tion as  read,  there  had  been  no  necessity  for  the  failure  of  the  Committee, 
or  for  such  deliberation  and  action;  but  you  and  your  party  have  aban- 
doned the  submitted  Instruction,  as  well  as  the  Summons  of  his  imperial 
Majesty. 

After  all,  we  expect  from  your  royal  Highness,  princes,  and  others, 
as  our  dear  and  gracious  uncles,  cousins,  friends  and  especially  esteemed 
ones,  as  we  also  once  more  kindly  request  and  humbly  pray,  that  you 
become  willing  again  to  bring  to  mind  the  occasion  of  this  action,  and  our 
complaint,  and  consider  with  diligence  the  ground  and  reason  of  the 
same,  and  allow  yourselves  to  be  moved  by  nothing  against  the  former 
decree,  unanimously  concluded,  pledged,  written  and  sealed;  and  not 
act  as  nobody  has  justice,  power  and  right  to  do,  for  reasons  mentioned 
and  others  well-founded,  which  it  is  best  now  not  to  repeat. 

And  if  this  third  announcement  of  our  evident  grievances  shall  not 
be  allowed  by  your  imperial  Highness,  princes  and  others,  then  we  here- 
with PROTEST  and  testify  openly  before  God,  our  sole  Creator,  Pre- 
server, Redeemer  and  Saviour  (who,  as  we  mentioned  before,  alone 
searches  and  knows  all  hearts,  and  therefore  will  judge  justly)  likewise 
before  all  men  and  creatures,  that  we  for  ourselves,  our  subjects  and  in 
behalf  of  all,  each  and  every  one,  consider  null  and  void  the  entire  trans- 
action and  the  intended  decree,  which  in  the  aforementioned  or  in  other 
cases,  is  undertaken,  agreed  and  passed,  against  God,  his  holy  word,  all 
our  soul's  salvation  and  good  conscience,  likewise  against  the  formerly 
announced  decree  of  the  Diet  of  Speyer — [and  we  protest]  not  secretly, 
nor  willingly,  but  for  reasons  above  stated  and  others  good  and  well- 
founded.  This  protest  we  are  compelled  to  issue  and  to  make  a  more 
thorough  and  true  report  to  his  imperial  Majesty,  our  gracious  Lord. 
To  the  same  effect  yesterday,  with  reference  to  the  rendered,  intended 
decree,  we  thereupon  through  our  Protest l  (made  in  haste,  which  we  also 
herewith  repeat)  let  our  mind  be  plainly  known;  and  besides  we  offered 
nevertheless,  until  the  aforementioned  general  and  free  Christian  Council 
or  national  assembly,  by  divine  help  and  in  conformity  with  the  contents 
of  the  aforesaid  decree  of  the  former  Diet  of  Speyer,  in  our  jurisdictions, 
and  among  and  with  our  subjects  and  kindred,  that  we  will  so  hold,  live 
and  rule  as  we  hope  and  trust  to  answer  for  ourselves  before  Almighty 
God  and  his  Roman  imperial  Majesty,  as  a  Christian  Emperor.  What- 
ever also  concerns  the  rent,  interest,  revenue,  and  peace  of  the  clergy, 
we  in  that  also  will  maintain  and  prove  ourselves  to  be  incorruptible. 
And  likewise,  in  respect  to  the  subsequent  articles,  concerning  anabap- 
tism 2  and  printing,  as  we  completely  agreed  in  the  Diet,  we  desire  to  be 

1  The  material  parts  of  this  first  Protest  are  given  by  Ney  (p.  233)  in  his  history 
of  the  Diet.     See  bibliographical  note.     The  complete  document  is  in  Walch, 
16:  383  seq. 

2  The  article  against  the  Anabaptists,  which  the  Protest  approves  as  "in  every 
respect  proper,"  was:  "All  Anabaptists  and  rebaptized  persons,  male  or  female, 
of  mature  age,  shall  be  judged  and  brought  from  natural  life  to  death,  by  fire  or 
sword  or  otherwise,  as  may  befit  the  persons,  without  preceding  trial  by  spiritual 
judges.  .  .  .  Such  persons  as  of  themselves,  or  after  instruction,  at  once  confess 


440  APPENDIXES 

in  accord  with  his  imperial  Highness,  the  princes,  and  the  others;  also  we 
consider  the  contents  of  the  same  articles  to  be  in  every  respect  proper.1 
We  also  bind  ourselves  to  extend  further  our  aforesaid  complaints  and 
Protest,  and  whatever  besides  our  further  necessity  demands  with  regard 
to  everything.  And  above  all  we  desire,  unquestionably  expect  and 
are  satisfied  that  his  Roman  imperial  Majesty  will  graciously  hold  and 
manifest  himself  toward  us  as  a  gracious  Christian  Emperor,  loving 
God  above  all  things,  and  our  gracious  Lord,  in  consideration  of  our 
Christian,  honorable,  honest  and  immutable  minds  and  due  obedience. 
Wherein  we  hereupon  may  also  render  friendly  and  voluntary  service 
and  may  show  kind  and  gracious  inclinations  to  your  royal  Highness, 
princes,  and  the  others,  as  our  dear  and  gracious  uncles,  cousins,  friends 
and  especially  esteemed  ones.  That  we  are  willing  and  inclined  to  do  out 
of  friendship,  also  from  voluntary  obedience,  goodwill  and  Christian 
love  and  duty. 

Done  at  Speyer  on  the  twentieth  day  of  April,  and  in  the  1529th  year 
after  the  birth  of  Christ,  our  dear  Lord  and  Saviour. 

(Signed)  JOHN,  Duke  of  Saxony,  Elector. 

GEORGE,  Margrave  of  Brandenburg. 

ERNEST,  Duke  of  Liineberg. 

PHILIP,  Landgrave  of  Hesse. 

WOLF  [GANG],  Prince  of  Anhalt. 

VII 

THE   PEACE  OF  AUGSBURG2 

CONSTITUTION  OF  THE  PEACE  between  their  Imperial  and 
Royal  Majesties,  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  Electors  and  Estates  of  the  Realm 
on  the  other. 

1.  WE  FERDINAND,  etc.,— Whereas,  at  all  the  Diets  held  during 
the  last  thirty  years  and  more,  and  at  several  special  sessions  besides, 

their  error,  and  are  willing  to  undergo  penances  and  chastisement  therefor,  and 
pray  for  clemency — these  may  be  pardoned  by  their  government,  as  may  befit 
their  standing,  conduct,  youth  and  general  circumstances.  We  will  also  that 
all  of  their  children,  according  to  Christian  order,  usage  and  rite,  shall  be  bap- 
tized in  their  youth.  Whoever  shall  despise  this,  and  will  not  do  it,  shall,  if  he 
persists  in  that  course,  be  held  to  be  an  Anabaptist,  and  shall  be  subjected  to  our 
above-named  ordinance." 

1  The  article  on  printing,  which  the  protesting  princes  also  fully  approved, 
reads:  "In  addition,  we,  also  the  electors,  princes  and  Estates  of  the  Empire, 
pending  the  Council,  will  and  order  that  each  government  shall  with  all  possible 
diligence  take  oversight  of  all  printing  and   book-publishing,   that  nothing  be 
hereafter  printed  that  is  new  [i.  e.  heretical] — and    especially  abusive  writings, 
whether  publicly  or  privately  composed  and  printed — or  be  sold  or  be  carried 
about  and  offered  for  sale;  but  what  shall  further  be  composed,  printed  or  had  for 
sale  shall  first  be  inspected  by  that  government,  through  appointed,  qualified 
persons,  and  if  defects  are  found  therein,  the  same  shall  be  forbidden  to  be  printed 
or  sold  under  heavy  penalties;  moreover,  it  is  commanded  and  enjoined  that  the 
authors,  printers  and  sellers,  if  they  transgress  such  command,  shall  be  punished 
by  the  government  under  which  they  live  or  are  found,  according  to  opportunity." 

2  The  document  is  printed  in  full,  with  a  mass  of  illustrative  and  supplementary 
matter,  in  Lehmann's  De  Pace  Religionis  acta  publica  el  originalia,  Frankfurt,  1707, 
pp.  62-65.    Copious  extracts,  not  always  verbally  exact,  are  given  in  Gieseler, 
4:  207-209.    A  critical  edition  of  the  text  has  been  published  by  Karl  Brandi, 
Munchen,  1896. 


APPENDIXES  441 

there  have  often  been  negotiations  and  consultations  to  establish  between 
the  Estates  of  the  Holy  Empire  a  general,  continuous  and  enduring  peace 
in  regard  to  the  contending  religions;  and  several  times  terms  of  peace 
were  drawn  up,  which,  however,  were  never  sufficient  for  the  maintenance 
of  peace,  but  in  spite  of  them  the  Estates  of  the  Empire  remained  con- 
tinually in  bitterness  and  distrust  toward  each  other,  from  which  not  a 
little  evil  has  its  origin:  inasmuch  then,  as  in  the  continued  division  of 
religion  a  comprehensive  agreement  and  treaty  of  peace,  regarding  both 
religions  and  profane  or  civil  things,  was  not  undertaken — and  in  all 
ways  these  revised  and  settled  articles,  concerning  both  religions  here- 
after to  be  named,  might  let  one  know  how  one  should  finally  stand  to  the 
other — so  that  the  Estates  and  subjects  could  not  be  sure  of  continual 
and  abiding  safety,  but  everybody  had  continually  to  stand  doubtfully 
in  unbearable  danger:  to  remove  such  serious  uncertainty,  and  to  secure 
again  peace  and  confidence  in  the  minds  of  the  Estates  and  subjects  toward 
each  other,  and  to  save  the  German  nation,  our  beloved  Fatherland,  from 
final  dissolution  and  ruin,  We,  on  the  one  hand,  have  united  and  agreed 
with  the  Electors  and  the  regular  Princes  and  Estates  present,  and  with 
the  deputies  and  embassies  of  those  absent,  as  they  on  the  other  hand 
with  Us. 

2.  We  therefore  establish,  will  and  command,  that  from  henceforth 
no  one — of  whatsoever  honor,  rank  or  character  he  may  be,  for  any  sort 
of  cause,  whatever  name  it  may  have  or  under  whatever  pretence  it 
shall  be  done — shall  engage  in  feuds,  make  war  upon,  rob,  seize,  invest 
or  besiege  another.     Nor  shall  he,  in  person  or  through  any  agent,  descend 
upon  any  castle,  town,  manor,  fortification,  villages,  estates,  hamlets, 
or  without  the  consent  of  that  other,  seize  them  wickedly  with  violent 
deed,  nor  damage  them  by  fire  or  in  other  ways.     Nor  shall  anyone  give 
such  perpetrators  counsel  or  help,  or  render  them  aid  and  assistance  in 
any  other  way.     Nor  shall  one  knowingly  or  willingly  show  them  hos- 
pitality, house  them,  give  them  to  eat  or  drink,  keep  or  suffer  them.    But 
every  one  shall  love  the  other  with  true  friendship  and  Christian  love. 
It  is  provided  also  that  no  Estate  or  member  of  the  Holy  Empire  shall 
take  away  or  obstruct  (or  in  the  proper  place  he  shall  suffer  justice)  free 
access  to  provisions,  food,  trade,  rent,  money  and  income;  but  in  every 
way  shall  his  imperial  Majesty,  and  We,  and  all  the  Estates,  mutually 
suffer  to  abide  all  the  contents  of  these  present  constitutions  of  the  accom- 
plished peace  of  the  land. 

3.  And  in  order  that  such  peace — and  also  on  account  of  the  dis- 
puted religions,  as  is  seen  from  the  causes  before  named  and  mentioned, 
and  is  required  by  the  great  necessity  of  the  Holy  Roman  Empire  of  the 
German  nation — may  be  the  more  established,   founded,   and  made 
secure  and  enduring  between  the  Roman  Imperial  Majesty  and  Us 
and  the  Electors,  Princes  and  Estates  of  the  Holy  Empire  of  the  German 
nation;  therefore  the  imperial  Majesty,  and  We,  and  the  Electors,  Princes 
and  Estates  of  the  Holy  Empire,  will  make  war  on  no  Estate  of  the  Empire 
on  account  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  and  the  doctrine,  religion  and 
faith  of  the  same,  nor  injure,  nor  do  violence  to,  or  in  other  ways  invade 
it,  against  conscience,  knowledge  and  will,  where  the  religion,  faith, 
church-usages,  ordinances  and  ceremonies  of  the  Augsburg  Confession 
have  been  established  or  may  hereafter  be  established  in  their  principali- 


442  APPENDIXES 

ties,  lands  and  dominions.  Nor  shall  they  through  mandate,  or  in  any 
other  way  trouble  or  disparage  them,  but  shall  let  them  quietly  and  peace- 
fully remain  in  their  religion,  faith,  church-usages,  ordinances  and  cere- 
monies, as  well  as  their  possessions,  real  or  personal  property,  land, 
people,  dominions,  governments,  honors  and  rights.  And  the  opposing 
religion  shall  be  brought  to  a  unanimous  Christian  understanding  and 
agreement  not  otherwise  than  by  Christian,  friendly  and  peaceful  means 
and  ways.  All  this  [to  be  done]  according  to  imperial  and  kingly  digni- 
ties, princely  honors,  and  true  words,  and  sanctions  of  the  peace  of  the 
land. 

4.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Estates  that  have  accepted  the  Augsburg 
Confession  shall  suffer  his  imperial  Majesty,  Us  and  Electors,  Princes 
and  other  Estates  of  the  Holy  Empire,  adhering  to  the  old  religion,  spirit- 
ual or  secular,  together  with  their  chapters  and  other  spiritual  Estates, 
notwithstanding  whether  and  where  they  may  have  removed  or  changed 
their  residences  (provided  nevertheless,  that  the  appointment  of  ministers 
be  conducted  as  a  special  article  herein  directs)  to  abide  in  like  manner  by 
our  religion,  faith,  church-usages,  ordinances  and  ceremonies.     They  shall 
also  leave  undisturbed  their  possessions,  real  and  personal  property, 
lands,  people,  dominions,  government,  honors  and  rights,  rents,  interest 
and  tithes.     They  shall  suffer  them  to  possess  these  peaceably  and  quietly, 
to  enjoy  them,  to  follow  after  them  unmolested,  and  faithfully  to  remain 
in  them.     Nor  shall  they  by  force  or  other  misdeeds  undertake  anything 
against  them,  but  in  all  ways,  according  to  the  letter  and  order  of  the 
laws  of  the  Holy  Empire,  its  rights,  ordinances  and  edicts,  and  the  estab- 
lished peace  of  the  land,  each  one  shall  with  regard  to  the  other  content 
himself  with  his  proper  and  legitimate  rights — all  of  which  in  accordance 
with  princely  honor,  true  words,  the  sanctions  of  the  established  peace  of 
the  land  include. 

5.  Yet  all  others1  if  they  are  not  adherents  of  either  of  the  above 
mentioned  religions,  are  not  intended  in  this  peace,  but  shall  be  altogether 
excluded. 

6.  And  since,  in  the  negotiation  of  this  peace,  there  has  been  disagree- 
ment about  what  should  be  done  when  one  or  more  of  the  spiritual  [Estates] 
should  abandon  the  old  religion,  on  account  of  the  archbishoprics,  pre- 
latures  and  benefices  that  were  held  by  them,  about  which  the  adherents 
of  both  religions  could  not  come  to  an  agreement:  therefore,  by  the  au- 
thority of  the  honored  Roman  Imperial  Majesty,  fully  delegated  to  Us, 
we  have  declared  and  established  and  do  hereby  make  known,  that  where 
an  archbishop,  bishop,  prelate  or  other  spiritual  incumbent  shall  depart 
from  our  old  religion,  he  shall  immediately  abandon,  without  any  opposi- 
tion or  delay,  his  archbishopric,  bishopric,  prelature,  and  other  benefices, 

1  The  effect  of  this  article  was  to  deny  all  protection  of  law,  not  only  to  such 
sects  as  the  Anabaptists,  but  to  the  churches  of  the  Reformed  or  Calvinistic 
faith.  Several  of  the  free  cities,  like  Strasbur^,,  and  at  least  one  considerable 
province,  the  Palatinate,  either  strongly  favored  or  had  openly  adopted  this  type 
of  reformation  rather  than  the  Lutheran.  This  process  went  on  with  greatly 
accelerated  rapidity  after  1555,  and  before  1600  no  fewer  than  eight  principalities, 
together  with  a  large  number  of  free  cities  (especially  those  on  the  lower  Rhine) 
had  become  Reformed.  For  an  excellent  outline  of  this  movement,  see  Moeller, 
History  of  the  Christian  Church,  3:  299-314.  The  Reformed  churches  had  no 
legal  status  in  the  Empire  until  the  treaty  of  Westphalia,  in  1648. 


APPENDIXES  44$ 

with  the  fruits  and  incomes  that  he  may  have  had  from  it,  nevertheless 
without  prejudice  to  his  honors.  Also  the  chapters,  and  those  to  whom 
by  common  right  it  belongs,  or  is  the  custom  of  churches  and  foundations, 
shall  be  permitted  to  elect  and  ordain  a  person  belonging  to  the  old  reli- 
gion. All  which  spiritual  chapters  and  other  churches  shall  be  left  in 
unmolested  and  peaceful  enjoyment  of  church  and  monastery  foundations, 
elections,  presentation  and  confirmation,  old  customs,  rights,  real  and 
personal  property — nevertheless,  not  interfering  with  the  future  Christian,, 
friendly  and  final  settlement  of  religion. 

7.  But  since  several  Estates  and  their  ancestors  have  confiscated 
several  chapters,  monasteries  and  other  spiritual  possessions,  and  have- 
applied  their  income  to  churches,  schools,  charities,  and  other  things: 
so  also  such  confiscated  property  which  does  not  belong  to  them  (if  they 
are  immediately  subject  to  the  Empire  and  are  Estates  of  the  Empire, 
and  if  the  clergy  did  not  have  possession  of  it  at  the  time  of  the  treaty  of 
Passau  or  since  that  time)  shall  be  included  in  this  agreement  of  peace, 
and  shall  remain  by  the  regulation  [determining]  how  each  Estate  shall 
deal  with  the  above  mentioned  confiscated  and  already  sequestrated 
properties.    And  to  secure  an  abiding,  eternal  peace,  the  said  Estates 
shall  not  on  this  account  justly  or  unjustly  be  discussed  or  molested. 
Therefore,  by  and  with  the  authority  of  this  edict,  we  command  and  order 
the  Supreme  Court  of  his  imperial  Majesty  and  their  colleagues,  that  in 
respect  to  such  property  they  shall  not  recognize  or  decree  any  citation, 
mandate  or  process. 

8.  Also,  in  order  that  the  aforesaid  mutually-related  religions  may  so 
much  the  more  live  and  abide  with  one  another  in  perpetual  peace  and 
good  security,  the  spiritual  jurisdiction  shall  not  interfere  or  be  exercised 
against  the  Augsburg  Confession  of  religion,  as  regards  appointment  of 
clergy,  church-usages,  ordinances  and  ceremonies,  if  they  have  been 
established  or  may  be  established,  until  the  final  settlement  of  religion; 
but,  as  a  following  special  article  directs,  shall  let  that  religion  [of  the 
Augsburg    Confession],    faith,    church-usages,    ordinances,    ceremonies, 
and  appointment  of  clergy,  go  its  own  way,  and  make  no  opposition  or 
contradiction,  but  (as  was  said  above)  until  a  final  Christian  settlement  of 
religion,  shall  let  the  spiritual  jurisdiction  rest,  and  remain  inactive  and 
suspended.    Yet  spiritual  Electors,  Princes,  Estates,  collegia,  monaster- 
ies, members  of  orders,  shall  of  course  be  left  unmolested  in  the  enjoy- 
ment of  their  rents,  interest  on  money,  tithes,  livings  and  other  rights  and 
privileges.     But  in  other  things  and  cases,  not  pertaining  to  the  religion 
of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  faith,  church-usages,  ordinances,  ceremonies, 
and  appointment  of  clergy,  the  spiritual  jurisdiction  through  the  arch- 
bishops, bishops,  and  other  prelates,  according  to  the  custom  of  its  exer- 
cise in  each  place  where  they  are  in  the  possession  and  use  of  their  power, 
shall  be  exercised,  used  and  practised  unhindered  in  the  future  as  hereto- 
fore. 

9.  As  also  all  outstanding  rent,  interest,  money  and  tithes,  as  before 
said,  shall  follow  the  Estates  connected  with  the  old  religion;  so  each 
party  in  whose  jurisdiction  the  rents,  interest,  money,  tithes  or  proper- 
ties are  located,  shall  nevertheless  retain  over  these  properties  his  civil 
authority,  rights  and  justice,  which  he  had  before  the  beginning  of  this 
quarrel  in  religion,  and  which  have  been  in  use,  and  shall  in  no  way  be- 


444  APPENDIXES 

deprived  of  the  same.  Provided,  however,  that  by  the  said  properties 
the  necessary  ministers  of  the  churches,  preachers  and  schools,  also  alms 
and  hospital  dues,  which  formerly  were  given  and  were  due  to  be  given — 
such  ministers  of  the  churches  and  schools,  no  matter  of  what  religion 
they  may  be,  shall  hereafter  be  supported  just  as  they  formerly  were 
supported  by  the  aforesaid  properties. 

10.  And  if,  on  account  of  such  arrangement,  strife  and  misunder- 
standing shall  result,  then  shall  both  parties  elect  one  or  two  referees 
(and  if  these  cannot  come  to  an  agreement,  they  shall  elect  an  impartial 
umpire,  who  shall  afterwards  sit  with  them  to  decide  the  case)  to  compare 
both  sides,  and  after  proper  consideration  they  shall  give  their  judgment 
within  six  months,  what  and  how  much  shall  be  given  for  the  support  of 
the  aforesaid  ministries  and  other  things.     However,  while  this  dispute 
lasts  about  the  support  of  the  clergy,  those  in  possession  shall  not  be 
arrested  or  hindered,  so  long  as  no  peaceful  agreement  has  been  secured 
or  the  decision  of  the  referees  or  umpire  has  not  been  given.     But  never- 
theless, in  the  meantime,  as  said  before,  those  to  whom  belong  the  rent, 
money,  interest,  tithes  and  property  from  which  the  ministers  of  the 
church  have  been  supported  of  old,  shall  continue  to  pay  what  they  have 
long  given  such  ministers,  until  the  decision  of  the  case. 

11.  No  Estate  shall  endeavor  to  urge  another  or  the  subjects  of  the 
same  to  his  religion,  nor  against  his  authority  take  them  under  his  pro- 
tection and  care,  nor  annoy  in  any  way.1    And  should  any  one  have  taken 
the  same  heretofore  and  of  old  as  patron  and  protector,  they  shall  not 
be  deprived  hereafter,  and  that  is  not  intended. 

12.  But  when  our  subjects  and  those  of  the  Electors,  Princes  and  Es- 
tates, adhering  to  the  old  religion  or  to  the  Augsburg  Confession,  for  the 
sake  of  their  religion  wish  to  go  with  wife  and  children  to  another  place 
in  the  lands,  principalities  and  cities  of  the  Electors,  Princes  and  Estates 
of  the  Holy  Empire,  and  settle  there;  such  going  and  coming,  and  the 
sale  of  property  and  goods,  in  return  for  reasonable  compensation  for 
serfdom  and  arrears  of  taxes,  as  in  every  place  from  ancient  times  to  the 
present  has  been  held  customary,  shall  be  everywhere  unhindered,  per- 
mitted and  granted,  and  on  our  honor  and  faith  shall  in  no  way  be  pun- 
ished.   Yet  this  shall  add  nothing  to  the  magistrates'  rights  and  customs 
regarding  serfdom,  nor  shall  anything  be  hereby  abated  or  taken  away. 

13.  And  hereafter  a  settlement  in  matters  of  religion  and  faith  shall 
be  sought  in  proper  and  fitting  ways,  and  without  constant  peace  it 
is  not  easy  to  come  to  a  Christian,  friendly  settlement  in  religion;  there- 
fore have  We  and  the  Councillors  in  the  stead  of  the  Princes  and  Estates 
granted  this  state  of  peace,  to  hold  such  peace  fixed,  fast,  unbroken,  for 
the  sake  of  a  Christian  settlement,  and  we  shall  truly  comply  with  the 
same.     Where  then  such  settlement  will  not  ensue  by  means  of  general 
councils,  national  synods,  colloquies2  and  imperial  acts,  then  shall  this 
state  of  peace  in  all  the  aforesaid  points  and  articles  no  less  continue  and 
remain  in  force,  until  a  final  settlement  of  religion  and  matters  of  faith. 

1  This  recognizes  and  makes  permanent  the  rule  adopted  at  the  first  Diet  of 
Speyer  (1526),  Cujus  rex  ejus  religio — or,  the  religion  of  the  subject  follows  that  of 
his  Prince. 

*  The  colloquy  of  Worms  was  summoned,  in  pursuance  of  this  article,  in  1557, 
but  it  was  broken  up  by  the  dissensions  of  the  Protestants,  without  having  ac- 
complished anything.  See  the  Acta  in  CR,  9:  272  seq. 


APPENDIXES  445 

And  herewith  in  the  manner  aforesaid,  and  in  all  ways  besides,  they  shall 
establish,  conclude  and  remain  in  an  enduring,  constant,  unbroken  and 
perpetual1  peace. 

14.  And  in  such  peace  the  free  knights,  who  are  immediately  subject 
to  his  Imperial  Majesty  and  Us,  shall  also  be  included,  and  it  is  further 
provided  that  they  shall  be  interfered  with,  persecuted  or  troubled  by 
no  one  on  account  of  both  the  aforesaid  religions. 

15.  But,  moreover  in  many  free  and  imperial  cities  both  religions, 
namely,  our  old  religion  and  the  Augsburg  Confessional  religion,  have 
hitherto  come  into  vogue  and  practice;  the  same  shall  remain  hereafter 
and  be  held  in  the  same  cities,  and  citizens  and  inhabitants  of  the  same 
free  and  imperial  cities,  spiritual  ranks  and  secular,  shall  peacefully  and 
quietly  dwell  with  and  among  one  another,  and  no  party  shall  venture 
to  abolish  the  religion,  church-customs  or  ceremonies  of  another,  or 
persecute  them  therefor,  but  each  party  shall  permit  the  other,  in  virtue 
of  this  peace,  to  remain  in  a  peaceful  and  friendly  manner  in  [the  enjoy- 
ment of]  their  religion,  faith,  church-usages,  customs  and  ceremonies, 
and  of  their  goods  and  chattels,  and  all  else  that  the  Estates  of  the  Empire 
have  decided  and  commanded  above  concerning  religion. 

16.  And  all  ordinances,  contained  in  previous  imperial  edicts  or  other- 
wise, must  be  understood  in  the  sense  of  this  treaty  of  peace,  in  all  points 
and  articles;  nothing  may  take,  derogate  or  abate  from  the  same;  nor 
may  any  declaration  or  anything  else  that  obstructs  or  alters  the  same, 
be  given,  acquired  or  received,  or  if  it  shall  be  already  given,  acquired 
or  received,  nevertheless  [it  shall  be  held]  to  be  unworthy  and  invalid,  and 
shall  not  be  treated  or  recognized  as  law. 

17.  Each  and  every  one  of  the  above  written  articles  specifically 
drawn  up  and  relating  to  his  imperial  Majesty  and  Us,  his   imperial 
Majesty  and  We,  by  his  imperial  and  our  royal  honor  and  word,  pledge 
ourselves  and  our  successors  to  hold  and  execute  firm,  fast,  inviolate  and 
genuine;  by  them  honestly  and  unresistingly  to  walk  and  live;  and  more- 
over now  or  in  the  future,  whether  for  completeness  or  under  some  other 
pretext  of  whatsoever  name,  not  to  criticise,  alter  or  let  them  fail,  nor 
permit  any  one  else  to  do  this  for  and  on  account  of  their  Imperial  and 
Royal  Majesties. 

18.  And  we,  the  appointed  councillors  of  the  Electors,  instead  of 
their  graces  the  Electors,  also  for  their  successors  and  heirs,  we  the 
illustrious  Princes,  prelates,  counts  and  lords,  and  the  delegates  and 
ambassadors  of  the  free  and  imperial  cities,  instead  and  in  behalf  of  our 
rulers  and  chiefs,  also  for  their  successors  and  heirs,  will  and  promise  by 
princely  honor  and  worth,  in  right  good  faith  and  in  words  of  truth, 
also  by  loyalty  and  faith,  so  much  as  may  lie  in  any  of  them,  as  it  stands 
everywhere  above,  to  hold  it  firm,  fast,  genuine  and  inviolate,  and  by  it 
truly  and  unhesitatingly  to  walk  and  live. 

19.  We  further  pledge  and  bind  ourselves  to  all  parties,  that  the 

1  "These  truces  with  the  infidels  [said  Wamba]  make  an  old  man  of  me."  "Go 
to,  knave,  how  so?"  said  Cedric,  his  features  prepared  to  receive  favorably  the 
expected  jest.  "Because,"  answered  Wamba,  "I  remember  three  of  them  in  my 
day,  each  of  which  was  to  endure  for  the  course  of  fifty  years;  so  that,  by  com- 
putation, I  must  be  at  least  a  hundred  and  fifty  years  old."  (Scott's  "  Ivanhoe") 
This  Peace  of  Augsburg,  for  a  "perpetual,"  "eternal"  treaty,  endured  a  long  time — 
something  like  sixty-three  years! 


446  APPENDIXES 

imperial  Majesty,  We  and  any  Estate,  with  whatsoever  sought  pretext, 
with  violence  or  in  any  other  manner,  secretly  or  openly,  through  our- 
selves or  others  acting  in  our  behalf,  will  not  burden,  offer  violence  to, 
make  war  upon,  persecute,  insult  or  trouble  another;  And  also  if  one 
party  or  Estate,  contrary  to  such  established  peace,  shall  offer  violence 
to  or  oppress  another  (as  nevertheless  should  not  be)  now  or  hereafter, 
with  overt  act,  secretly  or  openly,  we  promise  that  his  Imperial  Majesty, 
We  and  they,  also  our  and  their  successors  and  heirs,  will  in  that  case 
not  only  give  no  counsel,  help  or  assistance  to  the  violator,  or  one  who 
has  undertaken  or  is  to  undertake  the  overt  act,  but  also  if,  contrary  to 
this  peace,  any  Estate  shall  offer  violence,  oppose  or  make  war,  we  will 
give  help  and  assistance  against  the  violator  or  one  who  commits  the 
overt  act, — all  truly  without  danger,  etc. 

20.  Also  herewith,  and  by  the  authority  of  this  our  imperial  edict, 
we  command  and  order  the  judges  of  the  imperial  courts  and  their  col- 
leagues, that  they  hold  and  conduct  themselves  in  conformity  with  this 
treaty  of  peace,  as  well  as  give  fitting  and  necessary  relief  of  the  law  to 
the  appealing  suitors  themselves,  no  matter  to  which  of  the  aforesaid 
religions  they  belong,  and  against  all  such  to  recognize  and  decree  no 
citation,  mandate  or  process. 

Proclaimed  at  Augsburg,  in  the  year  1555,  September  25. 


THE   DECLARATION   OF   KING   FERDINAND 

We  Ferdinand l  .  .  .do  proclaim  and  make  known  to  everybody  by 
this  letter:  Whereas,  at  this  Diet  now  in  session  for  the  arrangement  and 
settling  of  a  religious  peace,  the  Estates  and  delegates  adhering  to  the 
Augsburg  Confession  have  submissively  brought  it  to  our  attention, 
that  knights,  cities  and  communes  belonging  to  several  archbishops, 
bishops  and  other  spiritual  [Estates],  a  long  time  ago  became  adherents 
of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  and  still  are  such;  and  since  the  same,  because 
of  their  religion  long  since  received  and  established  might  be  persecuted 
by  their  said  lords  and  rulers,  before  and  until  the  opposing  religions  shall 
be  brought  by  Christian,  friendly  and  peaceful  ways  to  a  Christian  under- 
standing, and  agreement;  and  that  this  was  not  more  certain  to  happen 
than  dissension  and  shameful  waging  of  war  between  lords  and  rulers  and 
their  subjects:  but  to  anticipate  such  things,  they  dutifully  entreated  Us 
to  recommend  the  spiritual  [Estates!  and  prevail  upon  them,  that  here- 
after, as  well  as  for  a  long  time  hitherto,  for  the  maintenance  of  the 
general  and  highly  necessary  peace  in  the  Holy  Empire  of  the  German 
nation,  they  permit  these  same  subjects  of  theirs  to  remain  undisturbed 
and  without  persecution  on  account  of  the  religion  of  the  Augsburg 
Confession,  and  let  them  await  the  aforesaid  final  agreement  between 
the  opposing  religions;  and  in  consideration  of  that  they  conceded  that 
such  subjects  would  do  whatever  is  necessary  in  the  present  constitution 
of  religious  peace.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Estates"  and  delegates  belong- 
ing to  our  old  religion  urged  altogether  different  grounds  and  requests; 
moreover  they  declared  that  the  Estates  of  both  religions  cannot  agree 
with  one  another  in  this  matter. 

1  The  long  and  tedious  list  of  titles  is  omitted. 


APPENDIXES  447 

Therefore,  by  the  authority  of  his  Roman  Imperial  Majesty,  our  dear 
brother  and  Lord,  fully  delegated  to  Us,  We  have  announced,  ordered 
and  determined  to  do  and  make  known  by  the  authority  of  this  letter, 
as  follows:  That  the  spiritual  [Estates]  shall  not,  on  account  of  religion, 
faith,  church-usages,  and  ceremonies,  hereafter  persecute  through  any- 
body their  knights,  cities  and  communes,  which  long  time  ago  became 
adherents  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  and  its  religion,  and  have  openly 
professed  and  practised  the  said  religion,  faith,  church-usages,  ordinances 
and  ceremonies;  but  shall  permit  them  to  be  undisturbed  in  the  same, 
until  the  aforesaid  Christian  settlement  of  religion. 

And  in  order  that  this  Declaration  of  ours  might  be  so  much  more 
unassailable,  the  spiritual  [Estates]  present  and  the  absent  councillors 
and  delegates,  pledge  to  Us  their  dutiful  honor  and  pleasure,  that  the 
limitation  [Derogatio] 1  with  regard  to  the  present  religious  peace  of  this 
Diet  (to  the  effect,  that  contrary  to  the  said  religious  peace  no  Declara- 
tion or  anything  else  that  might  obstruct  or  alter  the  same,  shall  be  given, 
acquired  or  received,  but  shall  be  invalid)  comprised  with  other  matters 
in  our  aforesaid  inviolate  declaration  and  edict,  by  their  honor  and 
power  shall  otherwise  [than  provided  by  this  Declaration]  be  permitted 
to  stand  fast  and  remain. 

For  the  better  witness  and  security  of  all  this,  we  have  written  this 
letter  with  our  own  hand,  and  confirmed  it  with  our  royal  seal  attached. 

Given  at  our  and  the  Holy  Empire's  city  of  Augsburg,  the  24th  of  Sep- 
tember, in  the  year  1555,  after  the  birth  of  Christ,  our  dear  Lord  and  Saviour 
of  our  reign  in  Rome  the  25th  year,  and  in  other  lands  the  29th. 

FERDINAND. 
J.  JONAS,  Vice-Chancellor. 

By  the  personal  command  of  our  Lord  the  King. 

1  This  refers,  of  course,  to  paragraphs  16  and  17  of  the  preceding  document 
already  drawn  up,  but  not  proclaimed  until  the  following  day. 


INDEX 


Aachen,  free  city,  xxiv;  coronation  of 
Charles  V  at,  137,  142;  of  Ferdi- 
nand, 338. 

Acolti,  Cardinal  Pietro,  prepares  bull 
of  excommunication,  127. 

"  Address  to  the  Nobility  of  the  Ger- 
man Nation,"  117  seq.,  250,  293, 
387. 

Adiaphora,  Melanchthon's  idea  of, 
377. 

Adrian  VI,  Pope  (1522-1523)  char- 
acter of,  201;  futile  attempts  of  at 
reform,  202  seq.;  demands  persecu- 
tion of  Luther,  203;  letters  to  Diet 
of  Nurnberg,  203,  205;  reply  of 
German  nation  to,  206;  death  of, 
208;  correspondence  with  Erasmus, 
226;  failure  as  Pope,  355. 

jEneas  Sylvius,  on  Germany,  xxv. 

Agricola,  Lutheran  theologian,  at 
Marburg,  311;  composes  Augsburg 
Interim,  374. 

Albert,  Archbishop  of  Cologne,  137, 
154,  280. 

Albert,  Archbishop  of  Mainz,  xxxvi; 
how  appointed,  40;  "Instruction" 
on  indulgences,  41;  Luther's  letter 
to,  45;  letter  of  Erasmus  to,  113; 
favors  candidacy  of  Charles  V,  114; 
Luther's  second  letter  to,  187;  re- 
ferred to,  137,  138,  153,  160,  340. 

Albert,  Margrave  of  Brandenberg,  in- 
troduces Reformation  in  Prussia, 
266,  380. 

Albertus  Magnus  on  "power  of  the 
keys,  "34. 

Albigenses,  203. 

Aleander,  Jerome,  papal  legate,  and 
the  Elector  of  Saxony,  138;  sketch 


of,  144;  his  opinion  of  Charles  V, 
152;  of  Elector  Frederick,  167;  of 
Bavarian  princes,  340;  author  of 
Edict  of  Worms,  418. 

Alexander  of  Hales,  on  indulgences, 
34. 

Altenberg,  Luther  and  Miltitz  meet 
at,  82. 

Altenstein,  167. 

Amsdorf,  friend  of  Luther,  167;  at 
Wittenberg,  185,  bishop  of  Naum- 
berg,  363. 

Anabaptists,  denounced  by  second 
Diet  of  Speyer,  290;  Lutherans  con- 
demn, 292;  radical  reformers,  345; 
their  leaders,  346;  obtain  control  of 
Minister,  347;  their  excesses,  348; 
defeat  and  punishment,  349;  re- 
cover teaching  of  Jesus,  386. 

Andrea,  Jacob,  Lutheran  theologian, 
345.' 

Anhalt,  joins  Torgau  league,  302;  see 
Wolfgang. 

Anselm,  on  the  atonement,  34. 

Appeal  to  council  by  Luther,  80;  text 
of,  413  seq. 

Aquinas,  Thomas,  on  papal  infallibil- 
ity, xxxv ;  on  indulgences,  35,  36; 
Luther's  relation  to,  52,  61,  113. 

Aristotle,  Luther  lectures  on,  107; 
Luther's  hostility  to,  16;  his  "Pol- 
itics," 247;  and  the  doctrine  of 
transubstantiation,  307. 

Arius,  184. 

Arnold  of  Brescia,  reformer,  xxxix; 
274. 

Arnoldists,  203. 

Articles,  of  Marburg,  312;  of  Regens- 
berg,  365,  373;  of  Schmalkald,  359; 


449 


450 


INDEX 


of  Schwabach,  313;  of  Torgau,  320, 
325. 

"Asterisks, "  of  Luther,  57,  59,  111. 

Aufkldrung,  its  service,  392. 

Augsburg,  free  city,  xxiv;  financial 
and  commercial  centre,  xxv,  350; 
interest  at,  xxvii;  Luther's  hearing 
at,  71;  adopts  Reformation,  280; 
refuses  recess  of  Diet,  335;  ap- 
proves Wittenberg  Concord,  361. 

Augsburg  Confession,  278;  drawn  up 
by  Melanchthon,  321;  signed  by 
princes,  323;  read  to  Diet,  ib.;  con- 
tents of,  324  seq.;  Confutation  of, 
326;  Apology  for,  328;  differs  from 
Schmalkald  articles,  359. 

Augsburg,  Diet  of  (1530),  319  seq.; 
(1547),  374. 

Augsburg  Interim,  374,  375. 

Augsburg,  Peace  of,  380  seq.;  text  of, 
440  seq.;  displeases  Pope,  383. 

Augustine,  influence  on  Luther,  16; 
on  Scriptures,  55;  cited,  21,  95,  99, 
101,  208. 

Augustinians,  7,  10;  connection  with 
sale  of  indulgences,  51. 

" Babylonian  Captivity,"  293. 
Baptism,  Luther  on,  122;  of  infants, 

Melanchthon  troubled  about,  185. 
Basel,  free  city,  xxiv;  Carlstadt  at, 

192,  307;  Erasmus  at,  234. 
Basil,  101. 
Bede,  99. 
Bern,  free  city,  xxiv;  Luther's  pacific 

letter  to,  362. 
Bernard,  St.,  16,  103,  199;  de  Con- 

sideratione,  134. 
Bible,   editions  before  Luther,   viii, 

170;  Luther's  discovery  of  Latin,  5; 

Luther  begins  version  of,  169;  New 

Testament  published,  170;  club  for 

translation  of,  173;  Old  Testament 

published,!?).;  later  editions  of,  ib.; 

increased  circulation  of,   174;  see 

Scriptures. 


Bishops,  loyal  to  Roman  Church,  267; 
Lutheran  churches  lacked,  276. 

Boccaccio,  story  of  a  Jew's  conver- 
sion, xxxviii. 

Bockhold,  John,  Anabaptist  leader, 
348,  349. 

Boffingen,  free  city,  xxiv. 

Bohemians,  schismatics,  100;  see 
Husites. 

Bologna,  283;  treaty  of,  317;  Charles 
V  crowned  at,  318;  Council  of  Trent 
adjourned  to,  373. 

Books,  censorship  of,  126,  212,  290, 
292. 

Bora,  Catherine  von,  marries  Luther, 
253. 

Bourbon,  duke  de,  255,  259;  his  army, 
283;  march  to  Rome,  284;  capture 
of  city  and  death,  285. 

Brandenburg,  Elector  of,  see  Joachim. 

Brandenburg,  Margrave  of,  see  Al- 
bert and  George. 

Brant,  Sebastian,  and  his  "Ship  of 
Fools,"  xxi. 

Bremen,  free  city,  xxiv;  adopts  Ref- 
ormation, 279;  joins  Schmalkald 
league,  338. 

Brenner  Pass,  379. 

Brenz,  Lutheran  theologian,  at  Mar- 
burg, 311;  at  Augsburg  confer- 
ences, 329;  work  in  Stuttgart, 
344. 

Breslau,  free  city,  adopts  Reforma- 
tion, 280. 

Brinck,  conferences  with  Glapio,  144. 

Brack,  Gregory,  to  Elector  Frederick, 
320. 

Brunswick,  prince  of,  joins  Torgau 
league,  302. 

Bucer,  in  sacramentarian  contro- 
versy, 309;  at  Marburg,  311;  pre- 
pares Tetrapolitan  Confession,  328; 
approves  Philip's  bigamy,  352;  ad- 
vises Landgrave  to  He,  354;  in  con- 
ference at  Cassel,  360;  part  in  Wit- 
tenberg Concord,  361. 


INDEX 


451 


Bugenhagen,  friend  of  Luther,  173; 
in  sacramentarian  controversy,  309 ; 
activity  at  Hildesheim,  363. 
Bulls,  Golden,  xvii,  xxi,  xxviii. 

Antiquorum  habet,  31. 

Quantum  praedecessores,  29. 

Liquet  omnibus,  37,  39. 

Unigenitus  Dei  films,  36. 

Nos  qui  pontificatus,  39. 

Postquam  ad  Apostolatus,  40. 

Exsurge  Domini,  127. 
Bundschuh,  xxxiii:  see  Peasants. 
Burckhardt,  George;  see  Spalatin. 

Cajetan,  sent  to  Germany,  59,  67,  68; 
letter  from  Leo  X  to,  67;  his  hear- 
ing of  Luther,  72seq.;  letter  to  Elec- 
tor Frederick,  75;  reply  of  Elector, 
76;  Brief  of  Leo  X  to,  75;  interview 
with  Miltitz,  86;  advice  to  Adrian 
VI,  202. 

Calendar,  Gregorian,  ix. 

Calvin  John,  his  benefices,  xxxviii; 
"Institutes,"  77. 

Campeggio,  and  Diet  of  Niirnberg 
(1524),  209  seq.;  Erasmus  to,  221; 
at  Augsburg,  330,  332,  335. 

Canossa,  xxxvi. 

Canstein  Bible  Institute,  173. 

Cape  of  Good  Hope,  new  route  to 
India,  350. 

Capitalism,  beginning  of,  xxiii:  foe 
to  the  Church,  388. 

Capito,  helps  compose  Tetrapolitan 
Confession,  328. 

Caraccioli,  papal  nuncio,  154. 

Caraffa,  Pietro,  appointed  Cardinal, 
355;  afterwards  Paul  IV,  357. 

Cardinals,  college  of,  greatly  im- 
proved, 355. 

Carlstadt  (Andrew  Bodenstein),  con- 
troversy with  Eck,  56;  at  Leipzig, 
89,  229;  character  of,  91;  excom- 
municated, with  Luther, '135;  ad- 
ministers communion  in  both  kinds, 
182;  extravagances  of,  185;  con- 


flict with  Luther,  191,  215;  last 
days,  192;  Luther's  treatment  of, 
294,  doctrine  _of  the  communion, 
306,  307,  308;  referred  to,  243,  250, 
255. 

Carlyle,  and  Great  Man  theory,  x, 
367. 

Celibacy,  clerical,  118. 

Censorship  of  books,  222,  290,  292, 
426. 

Centum  gravamina,  xxxvii,  xxxviii; 
adopted  by  Diet  of  Nurnberg,  207; 
377. 

Charlemagne,  130. 

Charles  V,  his  candidacy  as  Emperor, 
114;  elected,  115;  conditions  im- 
posed by  Electors,  116;  coronation 
at  Aachen,  137;  summons  Diet  at 
Worms,  138;  letter  to  Elector  Fred- 
erick, 143;  sends  Blither  safe-con- 
duct, 147;  respects  his  pledge,  150, 
163;  his  character  and  position  at 
Worms,  151;  constitutional  strug- 
gle with  Diet,  152;  not  impressed 
by  Luther,  156;  his  declaration  to 
the  Diet,  159;  issues  decree,  164; 
attitude  toward  Luther,  195;  com- 
pared with  Francis  I,  196;  alliance 
with  Leo  X,  199;  disallows  con- 
vention of  Regensburg,  212;  loses 
opportunity,  246;  political  policy, 
252;  campaign  in  Italy,  257;  treat- 
ment of  Francis  I,  259;  offends 
Clement  VII,  261;  league  against, 
263;  instructions  to  first  Diet  of 
Speyer,  264;  letter  to  Pope,  282; 
army  captures  Rome,  285;  treaty 
of  Cambray,  287;  position  in 
Europe,  288;  summons  second  Diet 
of  Speyer,  290;  recess  of  the  Diet, 
ib.;  treatment  of  Germany's  mes- 
sengers, 297;  turns  attention  to 
Germany,  314;  treaty  of  Bologna, 
317;  coronation  as  Emperor,  318; 
summons  Diet  at  Augsburg,  318; 
controversy  with  princes,  319; 


452 


INDEX 


hears  Confession  read,  323;  and 
Confutation,  327;  refuses  Tetra- 
politan  Confession,  328;  paralysis 
of,  329;  secures  Ferdinand's  elec- 
tion, 338;  failure  of  his  policy,  314 
seq.;  turning-point  in  his  plans,  364; 
peace  of  Crespy,  367;  declares  war 
on  Schmalkald  league,  369;  victor 
at  Miihlberg,  370;  triumph  illusory, 
372;  pacific  policy,  373;  unpopular- 
ity in  Germany,  375,  378;  scheme 
of  reform,  377;  flight  from  Inns- 
bruck, 379. 

Chieregati,  papal  legate,  203,  205. 

Christopher,  duke  of  Wiirtemberg, 
344. 

Church,  foe  of  commerce,  xxviii; 
theory  of  Roman,  xxxivse^.;  wealth 
of,  xxxvi,  388;  attitude  of  Germany 
toward,  xxxviii,  207,  377;  Aris- 
totle's influence  on,  16;  has  no  doc- 
trine of  indulgences,  32;  Luther's 
loyalty  to,  19,  47;  a  monarchy  in, 
93,  95;  reform  of,  117;  and  circu- 
lation of  the  Bible,  174;  corruptions 
of,  205,  355,  357;  secularization  of 
its  property,  217;  Luther's  early 
idea  of,  272;  how  organized  in  Ger- 
many, 273;  see  Reformation. 

Church  and  State,  believed  insepar- 
able, 194;  theories  of,  247;  Luther 
on,  248;  two  different  things,  274. 

Cincinnatus,  273. 

Cities,  free,  strength  of,  xxiv;  griev- 
ances of  against  Church,  xxviii; 
contest  of  with  nobles,  ib.;  adopt 
Reformation,  279  seq.;  Southern 
become  Zwinglian,  292,  306,  309; 
save  Reformation  at  Augsburg, 
334;  and  secularization,  337;  at- 
tempt at  revolution  by,  349  seq.; 
Zwinglian  admitted  to  Schmalkald 
league,  362;  grievances  against 
Charles  V,  378. 

Clement  VII,  Pope  (1524-1532),  elec- 
tion of,  208;  letter  to  Elector  Fred- 


erick, 209;  policy  of,  213;  treaty 
with  Francis  I,  258;  incompetence 
and  failure  of,  261;  a  prisoner,  285, 
286;  treaty  of  Bologna  with  Charles 
V,  317;  at  cross  purposes  with  Em- 
peror, 341;  death  of,  355. 

Clermont,  synod  of,  28. 

Cleves,  duke  of,  137. 

Coblenz,  86. 

Cochlseus,  Catholic  historian,  his  ac- 
count of  Luther,  51;  on  Luther's 
Bible,  174;  assists  in  preparing 
Confutation,  326;  in  conferences 
at  Augsburg,  329. 

College,  Electoral,  constitution  and 
functions  of,  xix;  elects  Charles  V, 
115;  elects  Ferdinand,  338;  pros- 
pect of  Protestant  majority  in,  364. 

College  of  Cardinals,  character  im- 
proved, 355. 

Colmar,  free  city,  xxiv. 

Cologne,  Luther's  books  burned  at, 
139;  remains  Catholic,  280;  see 
Albert. 

Colonna,  Cardinal,  284. 

Colossians,  Melanchthon's  book  on 
epistle  to,  178. 

Columbus,  debt  to  Johann  Miiller, 
xiv. 

Communion,  in  both  kinds,  120;  de- 
manded by  Bohemians,  121;  Carl- 
stadt  administers,  182;  Elector 
Frederick  received,  256;  Lutherans 
reestablish,  268;  see  Eucharist. 

Concordat,  of  Worms,  xxxvi;  of  Leo 
X  and  Francis  I,  198. 

Confession,  "Of  Two  Sacraments," 
347;  Saxonica,  378;  see  Augsburg, 
Tetrapolitan. 

Confutation  of  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession, 326  seq. 

Conrad,  duke  of  Franconia,  114. 

Conservative  principle  of  the  Refor- 
mation, 270. 

Consilium  de  emendenda  ecclesia,  355- 
357. 


INDEX 


453 


Consistories  in  Lutheran  churches, 
275. 

Constance,  free  city,  xxiv;  accepts 
Reformation,  250,  292;  becomes 
Zwinglian,  309;  approves  Tetra- 
politan  Confession,  328;  disap- 
proves Wittenberg  Concord,  361; 
attitude  toward  Interim,  375;  see 
Councils. 

Constantine,  275. 

Contarini,  Cardinal,  355. 

Copyright,  lack  of,  vii. 

Corpus  Christi,  celebration  at  Augs- 
burg, 317. 

Cortez,  360. 

Corvee,  peasants  object  to,  236. 

Cotta,  Frau,  kindness  to  Luther,  4. 

Council,  general,  esteemed  infallible, 
xxxv ;  Luther  appeals  to,  80,  413 
seq.;  free,  demanded  by  Diet,  206, 
210,  264,  283;  significance  of,  213; 
Emperor  promises,  264,  283,  336; 
Pope  dreads,  317;  called  by  Paul 

111,  358;  Clement  VII  negotiates 
concerning,   355;    Protestants   re- 
fuse, 360. 

Council,  Imperial,  153. 
Councils,  Nice,  93,  97,  275,  358. 

Ancyra,  28. 

Laodicea,  28. 

Chalcedon,  28. 

Fourth  Lateran,  29. 

Lyons,  30. 

Constance,  xxxix,  80,  110,  121, 
204,  205,  342. 

Fifth  Lateran,  xl. 

Trent,  358,  373,  378. 
Counter-Reformation  begins,  355. 
Cranach,  Lucas,  helps  Reformation, 

112,  253. 
Crespy,  peace  of,  367. 

Crotus     Rubianus,     humanist,    xii, 

149. 
Cruciger,  friend  of  Luther,  member 

of  Bible  Club,  173;  at  Marburg, 

311. 


Crusades,  effect  on  indulgences,  2& 
seq. 

Cujus  regio,  ejus  religio,  265,  381. 

Cup,  denial  to  laity,  120;  see  com- 
munion. 

Cyprian,  on  penance,  26;  cited,  94, 
97,  98,  99,  208,  221. 

Dante,  De  Vulgare  Eloquentia,  172; 
De  Monarchia,  247. 

Danzig,  free  city,  accepts  Reforma- 
tion, 279. 

D'Aubigne",  Merle,  67. 

Declaration  of  Ferdinand,  446. 

Democracy,  of  Swiss  towns,  305;  of 
German  towns,  315;  Luther's  con- 
tribution to,  368. 

Devil,  Luther's  belief  in,  169,  309. 

Diet,  functions  of,  xviii,  xix;  forbids 
private  war,  xxix;  of  Augsburg 
(1509,  1510,  1518),  xxxviii;  (1530), 
319  seq.;  Frankfurt  (1328),  317; 
Metz  (1347),  317;  Niirnberg  (1522), 
xxviii,  203  seq.;  demands  free  coun- 
cil, 206;  adopts  Centum  gravamina, 
207;  252,  257;  Regensburg  (1546), 
recess  of,  368,  365;  see  also  Speyer, 
Worms. 

Dionysius,  94,  98. 

Donauworth,  free  city,  xxiv. 

Doria,  Genoese  admiral,  286. 

Dowie,  John  Alexander,  348. 

Dresden,  Luther  preaches  at,  17. 

Diirer,  Albert,  and  the  Renaissance, 
xv ;  mourns  Luther,  xv,  168. 

Diisseldorf,  free  city,  xxiv. 

Ecclesiastical  Reservation,  282,  384. 

Eck,  John,  chief  opponent  of  Luther, 
his  knowledge  of  the  Bible,  viii,  92; 
writes  "Obelisks,"  56,  78;  renews 
controversy  with  Luther,  93  seq.t 
229;  upholds  divine  right  of  papacy, 
94;  controversy  with  Melanchthon, 
112;  brings  Leo's  bull  to  Germany, 
135,  136,  138;  composes  articles 


454 


INDEX 


against  Protestants,  321 ;  and  duke 
of  Bavaria,  326;  in  conferences  at 
Augsburg,  329;  in  colloquy  at 
Worms,  364;  referred  to,  110,  192. 

Eck,  jurist,  at  Worms,  155,  157,  158. 

Economic  basis  of  Reformation,  xxiii, 
387  seq. 

Edict  of  Worms,  176,  203,  207,  210, 
212,  257,  264,  265,  290;  text  of,  418 
seq. 

Eisenach,  Luther's  school  days  at,  3; 
Luther  ill  at,  149;  Luther's  "cap- 
ture" near,  167. 

Electoral  College,  see  College. 

Empire,  Holy  Roman,  constitution 
of,  xvii  seq.,  151,  380;  Roman  law 
in,  xx. 

Emser,  Catholic  theologian,  attacks 
Luther,  112. 

England,  commercial  advance  of, 
350. 

Epiphanius,  101. 

Episcopal  powers,  assumed  by  Ger- 
man princes,  273  seq.;  333. 

Episcopates,  secularization  of,  363. 

Erasmus,  and  copyright,  viii;  his 
"Praise  of  Folly,"  xii;  portrait  of 
by  Durer,  xv;  on  trade,  xxvi;  letter 
to  Elector  Frederick,  87;  to  Arch- 
bishop of  Mainz,  113;  opinion  of 
Luther,  139;  attitude  toward  the 
Reformation,  219  seq.;  letter  to 
Campeggio,  221;  to  Justus  Jonas, 
227;  to  Melanchthon,  224,  227; 
correspondence  with  Adrian  VI, 
226;  estrangement  from  Luther, 
228;  writes  his  Diatribe  de  Libero 
Arbitrio,  229;  skepticism  of,  321; 
writes  his  Hyperaspistes,  232;  dif- 
ference from  Luther,  233;  death  of, 
234;  on  rising  of  peasants,  252; 
cited,  243,  255. 

Erfurt,  free  city,  xxiv,  4;  see  Uni- 
versities. 

Ernest,  duke  of  Liineberg,  signs 
Protest,  292. 


Esslingen  free  city,  xxiv;  approves 
Wittenberg  Concord,  361. 

Ethics,  effect  of  Reformation  on,  391. 

Etienne,  Robert,  6. 

Eucharist,  Real  Presence  in,  119,  122; 
denial  of  cup  in,  120;  see  Commu- 
nion. 

Excommunication,  meaning  of,  xxxv; 
Luther  on,  62;  civil  effect  of,  129; 
effect  of  Luther's,  135;  develop- 
ment of  Luther's  views  on,  146. 

"Explanation  of  the  Theses,"  111, 
119. 

Faber,  assists  in  preparing  Confuta- 
tion, 326. 

Ferdinand,  Archduke,  153,  211;  pre- 
sides at  Speyer,  263;  King  of  Bo- 
hemia, 265;  elected  King  of  Hun- 
gary, 281;  elected  King  of  the 
Germans,  338,  365;  letter  of  Charles 
V  to,  371 ;  his  Declaration  at  Augs- 
burg, 381;  text  of,  446  seq;  receives 
duchy  of  Wurtemberg,  344. 

Francis  I,  King  of  France,  candidate 
as  Emperor,  114;  compared  to 
Charles  V,  196;  begins  war  in  Italy, 
198;  his  concordat  with  Leo  X,  198; 
invades  Italy,  258;  defeat  and  cap- 
ture at  Pa  via,  259;  signs  treaty  of 
Madrid,  260;  repudiates  treaty, 
262;  league  with  the  Pope,  263; 
again  unsuccessful  in  Italy,  287; 
aids  Protestants,  340;  makes  peace 
of  Crespy,  367. 

Francke,  Orphanage  of,  173. 

Frankfurt,  free  city,  xxiii;  accepts 
Reformation,  280;  approves  Wit- 
tenberg Concord,  361;  Luther 
writes  from,  149. 

Frankenhausen,  battle  of,  241. 

Frederick  II,  Emperor,  266. 

Frederick  III,  Elector  of  Saxony, 
xviii;  founds  university  of  Witten- 
berg, 10;  sketch  of,  19;  forbids  sale 
of  indulgences,  44;  Cardinal  Ro- 


INDEX 


455 


vero's  letter  to,  59;  his  reply,  66; 
Leo  X's  letter  to,  67;  Cajetan 
writes  to,  75;  his  reply,  76;  receives 
golden  rose  from  Pope,  81,  132; 
regent  of  Empire,  85;  letter  of 
Erasmus  to,  87;  his  reply,  88;  favors 
Leipzig  disputation,  91;  is  offered 
imperial  crown,  114;  his  protection 
of  Luther,  116;  Aleander's  de- 
mands and  his  reply,  138;  letters  of 
Charles  V  to,  143;  sends  Luther 
safe  conduct,  147;  at  Worms,  154; 
meets  Luther  there,  159;  protects 
the  reformer,  167;  opposes  innova- 
tions, 181;  Melanchthon's  letter  to, 
183;  his  advice  to  Melanchthon, 
185;  Luther's  curious  attitude 
toward,  188;  letter  of  Clement 
VII  to,  209;  against  peasants,  240; 
death  and  character  of,  255;  Luther 
to,  294. 

Free  cities,  see  Cities. 

Frundsberg,  George  von,  156,  283. 

Fuggers,  bankers  of  Augsburg  xxv; 
and  the  depreciation  of  silver,  xxxiii, 
finance  Archbishop  of  Mainz,  40. 

Galileo,  and  Nicholas  of  Cusa,  ix. 

General  council,  see  Council. 

George,  Duke  of  Saxony,  and  Luther, 
17;  at  the  Leipzig  disputation,  91 
seq,;  praised  by  Luther,  106;  be- 
comes hostile  to  reform,  113;  sends 
Luther  safe  conduct,  147;  at 
Worms,  145,  154;  against  peasants, 
240  seq.;  Luther  on,  246;  jealous  of 
the  Habsburgs,  329;  discovers 
Philip's  bigamy,  353;  death  and 
character  of,  362. 

George,  Margrave  of  Brandenburg, 
introduces  Reformation,  279;  signs 
Protest,  292;  joins  league  of  Torgau, 
302;  at  Rodach  conference,  303;  ob- 
duracy at  Augsburg,  319;  suggests 
union  of  Protestants  at  Augsburg, 
322;  signs  Confession,  323;  plunders 


churches,  334;  refuses  Interim, 
375. 

"German  Theology,"  Luther  pub- 
lishes, 16. 

Germany,  its  oligarchy  of  nobles, 
xvii,  xx,  xxxvii,  151,  380;  its  people, 
xxii;  social  revolution  in,  xxiii; 
knights  of,  xxiv;  peasants  of,  xxxi 
seq.;  wealth  of,  xxv;  attitude  of 
people  toward  Church,  xxxix;  po- 
litical state  of,  195;  its  grievances 
against  the  papacy,  207. 

Glapio,  conferences  with  Brinck, 
144. 

God,  Luther's  idea  of,  8. 

Goethe,  appreciation  of  Hans  Sachs, 
xvi;  visits  Rome,  283. 

Golden  rose,  81,  132. 

Good  works,  of  the  justified,  124. 

Gosler,  free  city,  xxiv. 

Government,  obedience  to,  180,  187; 


Gregory  of  Nazianzum,  94,  101. 
Guilds,  influence  of,  xxiii;  compared 

to  Trusts,  xxvi. 
Gunpowder,  consequences  of  ita  in- 

vention, xxx. 
Gustavus  Adolphus,  331. 
Gutenberg,  52. 

Habsburgs,    151;    jealousy    of,  266, 

329. 
Halle,  free  city,  xxiv;  indulgences  sold 

in,  187. 
Hamburg,    free  city,   xxiv;   accepts 

Reformation,  279. 
Hansa,  attempted  revival  of,  350. 
Hedio,    helps   prepare   Tetrapolitan 

Confession,  328. 
Heidelberg,  see  Universities. 
Heilbronn,    free   city,    xxiv;   adopts 

Reformation,  292. 
Heine,  on  Luther,  x,  331,  368. 
Helding,  suffragan  bishop  of  Mainz, 

374. 
Henry,  Duke  of  Brunswick,  362,  363. 


456 


INDEX 


Henry,  Duke  of  Saxony,  introduces 
Reformation,  363. 

Henry  II,  of  France,  378,  379. 

Henry  the  Fowler,  114. 

Henry  VIII,  candidate  as  Emperor, 
114;  referred  to,  196,  261,  263,  286, 
340,  351. 

Heresy,  guilt  of,  xxxv;  what  is  it?  63; 
of  the  Greeks,  99,  100;  should  not 
be  persecuted,  119. 

Hermann,  archbishop  of  Cologne,  at- 
tempts reform,  364;  deposed,  374. 

Hildesheim,  free  city,  xxiv;  secular- 
ized, 363. 

Hofmann,  Melchior,  Anabaptist  lead- 
er, 346. 

Hoogstraten,  Jacob,  Luther's  con- 
troversy with,  63,  78. 

Humanism,  significance  of,  v;  and 
Erasmus,  viii,  xii,  219  seq.;  and 
Reuchlin,  x;  Erfurt  and,  xi  seq.;  and 
Hutten,  xiii,  216  seq.;  ceases  to  be  a 
force,  234. 

Hus,  John,  reformer,  burned  at  Con- 
stance, xxxix,  148;  declared  heretic 
by  Eck,  100;  Luther  defends,  101, 
110;  and  university  of  Prag,  102; 
his  treatise  "On  the  Church,"  110; 
referred  to,  18,  38,  129,  204,  205. 

Husites,  184;  their  wars,  xxxiii,  xxxix, 
102;  see  Bohemians. 

Hutten,  Ulrich  von,  and  humanism, 
xiii,  216  seq.;  epigram  on  Julius  II, 
39;  friend  of  Sickingen,  116;  edits 
Leo's  bull,  136;  on  Diet  of  Worms, 
150;  relation  to  Reformation,  215; 
character  of,  216;  and  revolt  of 
knights,  216,  245;  death  of,  218. 

Hymnology,  and  Luther,  xvi,  271. 

Indulgences,  John  of  Wesel  on,  v,  38; 
origin  of,  26;  Cyprian  on  early,  27; 
enlarged  by  crusades,  28  seq.;  lim- 
ited by  Fourth  Lateran  Council,  30; 
bull  of  jubilee,  31;  Roman  theories 
of,  32  seq.;  Alexander  of  Hales  on, 


34;  Albertus  Magnus  on,  34;  Thom- 
as Aquinas  on,  35,  36;  sold  for 
money,  37,  38;  attacked  by  many, 
38;  archbishop  of  Mainz's  "In- 
struction" on,  41;  Luther  opposes, 
45,  187;  text  of  Luther's  theses  on, 
397  seq.;  Tetzel's  theses  on,  53,  402 
seq.;  Leo  X's  Brief  on,  75;  discussed 
at  Leipzig,  106;  Adrian  VI  on,  202. 

Infallibility,  of  Church,  335. 

Infallibility,  papal,  asserted  by  Pri- 
erias,  55;  Luther  on,  at  Augsburg 
73;  74;  Tetzel's  second  series  of 
theses  on,  409  seq. 

Interim,  Augsburg,  contents,  375; 
laughed  out  of  existence,  376. 

Interim,  Leipzig,  contents,  376. 

Intolerance  of  Protest  at  Speyer,  292; 
Luther's,  294;  of  Lutherans  at 
Augsburg,  327;  see  Persecution. 

Inventions,  printing,  vi,  111;  gun- 
powder, xxx. 

Isabella  of  Castile,  151. 

Isidore,  decretals  of,  107. 

Isny,  free  city,  accepts  Reformation, 
292;  disapproves  Wittenberg  Con- 
cord, 361. 

Italy,  Francis  and  Charles  rivals  in, 
197  seq.;  success  of  Francis  in  257 
seq.;  result  of  battle  of  Pavia  on, 
259,  263;  Charles  and  his  policy 
regarding,  282  seq. 

Jerome,  Father,  95,  97,  221. 

Jerome  of  Prag,  xxxix,  129,  204. 

Jews,  dominance  in  business,  388. 

Joachim  I,  Elector  of  Brandenburg, 
154,  162,  362. 

Joachim  II,  becomes  Protestant,  362; 
favors  Augsburg  Interim,  374;  of- 
fers submission  to  Rome,  378. 

Johann  von  Paltz,  defends  indul- 
gences, 51. 

John,  Count  Palatine,  154,  218,  288. 

John  Frederick,  Elector  of  Saxony, 
character,  343;  snubs  theologians, 


INDEX 


457 


361;  defeat  at  Miihlberg,  370;  sur- 
renders Electorate,  371;  protests 
against  Interim,  375;  release  of, 
380. 

John  of  Leyden,  see  Bockhold. 

John  of  Wesel,  on  indulgences,  v,  xl, 
38. 

Johnson,  Samuel,  87. 

John  the  Constant,  Elector  of  Saxony 
succeeds,  256;  favors  reform,  266; 
deceived  by  Pack,  288;  signs  Pro- 
test, 292;  unites  in  formation  of 
Torgau  league,  301;  dissuaded  by 
Luther,  303;  at  Augsburg,  319; 
signs  Confession,  323;  Luther's 
letter  to,  332;  returns  to  Witten- 
berg, 335 ;  protests  against  election 
of  Ferdinand,  338;  forms  Schmal- 
kald  league,  338;  serves  against 
Turks,  339;  death  of,  343. 

Jonas,  Justin,  friend  of  Luther,  173; 
letter  of  Erasmus  to,  222  seq.;  at 
Marburg,  311;  Luther  writes  to, 
332. 

Justification  by  faith,  17,  125,  268, 
306. 

Justinian  Code  in  Germany,  xx, 
xxxiii. 

Jiiterbock,  sale  of  indulgences  at, 
44. 

Kempten,  free  city,  xxiv;  approves 

Wittenberg  Concord,  361. 
Kessler,     interview     with     Luther, 

189. 
Knights,  and  the  social  revolution, 

xxix  seq.;  revolt  of,  216 ;  punishment 

of,  218. 

Lange,  friend  of  Luther,  14,  169. 
Lannoy,  viceroy,  258,  260,  284. 
Lautrec,  French  general,  286,  287. 
League,  see  Schmalkald,  Torgau. 
Leipzig,     65,     82;    disputation     at, 

91   seq.;    people  praise  Eck,  106; 

Eck   and   bull   opposed   by,   136; 


honors  Luther,  149;  Interim  of, 
376. 

Leo  X,  Pope  (1513-1521),  absolute 
monarch,  xl;  bulls  on  indulgences, 
39,  40;  Prierias  dedicates  book  to, 
54;  sketch  of,  58;  sends  Cajetan  to 
Germany,  59 ;  Luther's  first  letter  to, 
60;  disregards  Luther's  "Explana- 
tions," 61;  writes  to  Elector  Fred- 
erick, 67;  and  to  Cajetan,  ib.;  uni- 
versity of  Wittenberg  appeals  to, 
70;  asserts  power  over  purgatory, 
75;  Brief  to  Cajetan,  75,  81; 
Luther's  second  letter  to,  84;  ex- 
communicates Luther,  127;  Lu- 
ther's third  letter  to,  132;  concor- 
dat with  Francis  I,  198;  alliance 
with  Charles  V,  199;  death  and 
character  of,  ib.;  referred  to,  141, 
142,  208,  213,  224. 

"Letters  of  Obscure  Men,"  xii, 
xiii. 

Levya,  Antonio  de,  258. 

Liberty,  religious,  Luther's  early 
teaching  on,  194;  his  later  ideas 
about,  142,  186. 

Lichtenberg,  meeting  of  Luther  and 
Miltitz  at,  132. 

Lindau,  signs  Protest,  292;  accepts 
Tetrapolitan  Confession,  328;  dis- 
approves Wittenberg  Concord,  361. 

Linden,  becomes  Zwinglian,  309. 

Link,  Wencelaus,  friend  of  Luther, 
71. 

Lombard,  Peter,  "Sentences"  of, 
178. 

Lord's  Supper,  see  Communion, 
Eucharist. 

Louis,  King  of  Hungary,  281. 

Liibeck,  free  city,  xxiv;  accepts  Ref- 
ormation, 279;  revolution  in,  349 
seq. 

Liineberg,  Duke  of,  joins  league  of 
Torgau,  302;  signs  Augsburg  Con- 
fession, 323;  joins  Schmalkald 
league,  338. 


458 


INDEX 


Lupfen,  Count  of,  236. 

Luther,  John,  miner,  3;  burgomaster 
of  Mansfeld,  4;  his  grievance,  7,  9; 
Luther's  letter  to,  6,  169;  death  of, 
331. 

Luther,  Margaret,  3. 

Luther,  Martin,  teaching  not  new,  v; 
Heine  on,  x,  331,  368;  and  Erfurt 
Humanists,  xii,  xiv;  career  at  Er- 
furt, xiii,  4-6;  did  not  make  Refor- 
mation, xl;  birth  and  parentage,  3; 
training,  3  seq.;  discovers  Bible, 
xiii,  5,  176;  enters  monastery,  7; 
his  spiritual  struggle,  8;  ordained 
priest,  9;  professor  at  Wittenberg, 
10;  visit  to  Rome,  11;  doctor  of 
theology,  12;  lectures  on  Psalms, 
13;  on  Romans  and  Galatians,  14; 
on  justification  by  faith,  17;  pro- 
vincial vicar,  17;  his  first  book,  18; 
opposition  to  indulgences,  45;  sig- 
nificance and  effect  of  his  theses, 
xli,  46  seq.;  Tetzel  attacks  his 
teaching,  53,  402  seq.;  Prierias  re- 
plies to,  54;  beginning  of  contro- 
versy with  Eck,  56;  letter  to  Stau- 
pitz,  59,  60;  preaches  on  excom- 
munication, 62;  controversy  with 
Hoogstraten,  64;  beginning  of  his 
friendship  with  Melanchthon,  65; 
66;  Leo  X's  opinion  of,  67;  arrest 
ordered  by  Pope,  67;  letter  from 
Staupitz  to,  69;  journey  to  Augs- 
burg, 71;  writes  Melanchthon,  72; 
hearing  by  Cajetan,  72-75;  return 
to  Wittenberg,  75;  appeals  to  coun- 
cil, 80;  text,  413  seq.;  meeting  with 
Miltitz,  82;  letter  to  Tetzel,  86; 
summoned  to  Coblenz,  86;  letter  of 
Erasmus  to,  87;  renewal  of  con- 
troversy with  Eck,  89;  wavering 
attitude  toward  the  Pope,  90;  de- 
bate with  Eck  at  Leipzig,  93  seq.; 
avows  supremacy  of  Scripture,  101 ; 
great  pamphleteer,  111;  contro- 
versy with  Emser,  112;  defended 


by  Erasmus,  113;  offered  asylum 
by  Sickingen,  116,  217;  steps  in  his 
progress,  123;  difficulties  as  a  re- 
former, 126;  excommunicated,  127 
seq.;  meeting  with  Miltitz,  132;  de- 
fended by  Elector,  138;  burns 
Pope's  bull,  140;  beginning  of  in- 
tolerance, 142;  development  of  his 
views,  146;  receives  safe  conduct, 
147;  journey  to  Worms,  149;  before 
the  Diet,  154  seq.;  first  meets  Elec- 
tor Frederick,  159;  conferences 
with  ecclesiastics,  160  seq.;  sets  out 
for  Wittenberg,  164;  "captured" 
by  "bandits,"  167;  residence  at 
the  Wartburg,  168  seq.;  translates 
Bible,  169-175;  effect  on  German 
language,  172;  study  of  the  Scrip- 
tures, 176;  friendship  with  Me- 
lanchthon, 178;  turning-point  in 
the  life  of,  179;  opposes  innovations 
at  Wittenberg,  186;  change  in,  187 
seq.;  interview  with  Zwickau '  'proph- 
ets," 190;  conflict  with  Carlstadt, 
191  seq.;  essentially  a  conservative, 
194,  235;  Adrian  VI  demands  per- 
secution of,  203;  on  recess  of  Niirn- 
berg,  207;  head  of  great  party,  213; 
relation  to  Humanists,  215;  op- 
poses revolt  of  knights,  219;  early 
relations  to  Erasmus,  220,  228; 
compared  with  Erasmus,  233;  de- 
nounces peasants,  242  seq.;  mar- 
riage of,  253,  doffs  monk's  cowl, 
254;  urges  princes  to  assume  epis- 
copal powers,  267;  earlier  and  later 
ideas  of  Church,  272-276;  warns 
Elector  against  league  of  Torgau, 
303;  compared  with  Zwingli  as  re- 
former, 305;  controversy  with 
Zwingli,  307  seq.;  his  belief  in  the 
devil,  169,  309;  takes  part  in  con- 
ference at  Marburg,  311  seq.;  effect 
of  his  attitude,  313;  letters  to 
Elector,  315;  goes  to  Coburg,  321; 
approves  Augsburg  Confession, 


INDEX 


459 


322;  defends  Melanchthon,  331; 
opposed  to  compromise,  332;  op- 
posed to  divorce,  351;  approves 
Philip's  bigamy,  352;  heartens 
Melanchthon,  353;  advocates  lying, 
354;  interview  with  Vergerio,  358; 
approves  Wittenberg  Concord,  361 ; 
writes  pacific  letter  to  Swiss,  362; 
approves  defensive  war,  367;  death 
and  character  of,  368;  had  a  genius 
for  religion,  385;  innovator  rather 
than  reformer,  391. 
Luther's  Writings:  Theses,  45  seq.; 
text  of,  397  seq. 

"Asterisks, "57,  59,  111. 
"  Explanation  of  Theses, "  61. 
Acta  Augustana,  79. 
"Address  to  the  Nobility  of  the 
German  Nation, "  117  seq.,  127, 
180. 

"Appeal  to  Council, "  80,  413. 
"Babylonian   Captivity   of  the 

Church, "  120  seq. 
'Freedom  of  a  Christian  Man," 

123  seq. 

Letters  to  Leo  X,  60,  84,  132. 
"Against  the  Execrable  Bull  of 

Antichrist,"  135. 
"On  Monastic  Vows,"  169. 
"On  Misuse  of  the  Mass,"  169. 
"Warning  to  all  Christians  to 
Abstain  from   Rebellion   and 
Sedition,"  180. 
De  Servo  Arbitrio,  230. 
Ermanung  zum  Frieden,  237. 
"Against  the  Robbing  and  Mur- 
dering Bands  of  the  Peasants," 
243,  427  seq. 
"Open  Letter, "294. 
"On  Secular  Authority, "  248. 
New  Mass  Book,  268. 
Catechisms,  278. 
Ein'  Feste  Burg,  xvi,  331. 
Consilium  de  emendenda  ecclesia, 

357. 
Schmalkald  Articles,  357. 


Madrid,  treaty  of,  259,  262,  282.  , 

Magdeburg,  free  city,  xxiv;  Luther's 
school  days  at,  3;  accepts  Reforma- 
tion, 279;  joins  league  of  Torgau, 
302;  joins  Schmalkald  league,  338; 
resists  Interim,  375. 

Mainz,  presses  at,  vi;  Luther's  books 
burned  at,  140;  resists  Reforma- 
tion, 280;  see  Albert. 

Mansfeld,  Counts  of,  4;  join  Torgau 
league,  302;  join  Schmalkald  league, 
338. 

Marburg,  colloquy  at,  309  seq.;  arti- 
cles of,  312;  see  Universities. 

Margarethe  von  der  Saal,  bigamous 
"wife"  of  Philip  of  Hesse,  351, 
352. 

Marriage,   impediments  to,   202;  of, 
priests,   205,   208, ,  212;   Luther's, 
253;  Philip  of  Hesse's  bigamous, 
351  seq. 

Marsiglio  of  Padua,  his  Defensor  Pa- 
ds, 247. 

Martyrs,  reverence  for,  27. 

Mary  of  Burgundy,  xviii,  151. 

Mass,  abolition  of  at  Wittenberg,  181 
seq.;  Luther  writes  against,  169; 
prepares  book  of,  268;  reformers 
claim  to  observe,  325,  326. 

Matthys,  Jan,  Anabaptist  leader, 
346,  347. 

Maximilian  I,  Emperor,  marriage 
and  reign,  xviii ;  letter  about  Luther, 
66;  death  of,  85. 

Maximilian,  Duke  of  Bavaria,  266; 
jealousy  of  Habsburgs,  266. 

Mecklenberg,  302;  joins  league  of 
Torgau,  302. 

Mediterranean,  loses  commercial  su- 
premacy, 350. 

Meissen,  secularized,  363. 

Melanchthon,  at  Heidelberg,  x;  eu- 
logy of  Luther,  5,  14;  early  life,  64; 
comes  to  Wittenberg,  65;  disap- 
pointed at  Leipzig,  106;  defended 
by  Luther,  107;  letter  about  Leipzig; 


460 


INDEX 


disputation,  112;  Luther  writes  to, 
169;  revises  Luther's  New  Testa- 
ment, 169;  Luther's  respect  for,  65, 
172;  his  Loci  Communes,  177; 
friendship  with  Luther,  178;  per- 
plexed by  "prophets"  of  Zwickau, 
183;  on  duty  of  princes,  275;  ac- 
count of  Luther's  marriage,  253, 
254;  opposes  league  of  Torgau,  302, 
316;  in  colloquy  at  Marburg,  311 
seq.;  in  sacramentarian  controversy, 
309;  prepares  Torgau  articles,  320; 
begins  Augsburg  Confession,  321; 
makes  many  changes,  322;  his  dis- 
quietude, 326;  refuses  to  yield,  327; 
prepares  Apology,  328;  conferences 
with  Catholics,  329;  negotiates  with 
Campeggio,  330,  332,  335;  favors 
restoration  of  bishops,  334;  returns 
to  Wittenberg,  335;  approves  Phil- 
ip's bigamy,  351;  his  severe  illness, 
353;  writes  Appendix  to  Schmal- 
kald  articles,  359;  attends  confer- 
€»ce  at  Cassel,  360;  draws  up  Wit- 
tenberg Concord,  361;  in  colloquy 
at  Worms,  364;  stands  firm  at 
Regensburg,  365;  prepares  Witten- 
bergische  Reformation,  366;  draws 
up  Leipzig  Interim,  376;  on  Adi- 
aphora,  377;  draws  up  Confessio 
Saxonica,  378. 

Memmingen,  free  city,  xxiv;  signs 
Protest,  292;  becomes  Zwinglian, 
309;  unites  in  Tetrapolitan  Con- 
fession, 328;  approves  Wittenberg 
Concord,  361. 

Merseburg,  bishop  of,  91. 

Michelet,  on  Renaissance,  vi. 

Miltitz,  Cardinal,  university  of  Wit- 
tenberg appeals  to,  70;  bears  golden 
rose  to  Elector  Frederick,  81;  inter- 
view with  Luther,  82;  condemns 
Tetzel,  82,  83;  second  meeting  with 
Luther,  132. 

Minden,  free  city,  xxiv. 

Mohacs,  battle  of,  281. 


Monachism,  relations  to  new  learn- 
ing, vii,  xii;  Hutten  and,  xii. 

Monasteries,  monks  leave,  182;  secret 
of  bitterness  against,  388,  389. 

Monastic  vows,  Luther  on,  266. 

Montanists,  184. 

Moritz,  duke  of  Saxony,  363;  treason 
of,  369;  his  reward,  372;  withdraws 
from  Diet,  375;  proclaims  Leipzig 
Interim,  376;  second  treason,  378; 
death  of,  379. 

Miihlberg,  battle  of,  370. 

Miihlhausen,  free  city,  xxiv;  Miinzer 
at,  240. 

Miiller,  Johann,  and  scientific  re- 
search, xiv. 

Miiller,  Hans,  peasant  leader,  236. 

Mtinster,  free  city,  xxiv;  the  "up- 
roar" at,  347,  348;  significance  of, 
349. 

Miinzer,  Thomas,  sketch  of,  239;  at 
Miihlhausen,  240;  defeat  and  death, 
241. 

Mutianus,  Conrad,  and  Erfurt  Hu- 
manism, xi. 

Mystics,  work  of,  xl;  Luther's  sym- 
pathy with,  14,  306. 

Myconius,  of  Gotha,  at  the  Marburg 
colloquy,  311. 

Naumberg,  free  city,  xxiv;  Luther 
at,  149;  its  See  secularized,  363; 
Julius  von  Pflug  made  bishop  of, 
374. 

Netherlands,  commercial  growth  of, 
350;  war  with  Liibeck,  ib. 

Nicholas  of  Cusa,  sketch  of,  ix;  pro- 
poses political  reform,  xix. 

Nordhausen,  free  city,  xxiv. 

Nordlingen,  free  city,  xxiv;  signs 
Protest,  292. 

Niirnberg,  free  city,  xxiv;  centre  of 
Humanism,  xiv  seq.;  importance  of, 
xxv ;  accepts  Reformation,  280; 
signs  Protest,  292;  joins  league  of 
Torgau,  302;  unites  in  Rodach  con- 


INDEX 


461 


ference,  303;  Melanchthon  and, 
304;  conference  at,  314;  approves 
Augsburg  Confession,  322;  dele- 
gates blame  Melanchthon,  330, 
334;  peace  of,  340,  342,  343,  365, 
349;  Charles  V  to,  369. 

"Obelisks, "  of  John  Eck,  56,  111. 

Obscurantism,  monkish,  xii;  Protes- 
tant, 392. 

Oekolampadius,  letter  of  Melanch- 
thon to,  112;  influence  of,  175;  in 
sacramentarian  controversy,  309; 
at  Marburg,  311. 

Oligarchy,  of  German  princes,  xvii, 
151,  219,  339,  380. 

Origen,  221. 

Orlamund,  Carlstadt  at,  191,  192. 

Osiander,  at  Marburg,  311. 

Osnabriick,  free  city,  xxiv. 

Otho,  Emperor,  130. 

Pack,  Otto,  villainy  of,  288. 

Papacy,  unpopularity  in  Germany, 
xxxviii  seq.,  195;  dependence  on 
Germany,  xl;  authority  of,  94  seq., 
104;  Luther  becomes  hostile  to, 
109;  weakening  of  authority,  129; 
at  Avignon,  130;  exactions  of  de- 
nounced by  Duke  George,  145; 
scandals  of  confessed  by  Adrian 
VI,  205;  Melanchthon  ready  to  ac- 
cept, 330;  Luther  denounces  in 
Schmalkald  articles,  359. 

Pascal,  15. 

Passau,  peace  of,  380. 

Paul,  teacher  of  Luther,  16,  55,  125, 
391. 

Paul  III,  Pope  (1534-1549),  election 
and  character,  355;  sends  Vergerio 
to  Germany,  357;  summons  general 
council,  358;  indignant  at  Emperor, 
366;  controversy  with  Charles  V, 
373;  reluctantly  agrees  to  Interim, 
376;  death  of,  378. 

Pavia,  battle  of,  259. 


Peace,  of  Nurnberg,  340, 342. 
of  Passau,  380. 

of  Augsburg,  380  seq.;  text,  440 
seq. 

Peasants,  condition  of,  xxxi  seq.,  235; 
revolts  of,  xxxiii;  discontent  of, 
236 ;  outbreak  in  Swabia,  ib.;  Twelve 
Articles  of,  237,  245;  Luther's  "Ex- 
hortation" to,  237;  outrages  by, 
239,  uprising  in  North  Germany, 
239  seq.;  how  far  justified,  244  seq.; 
Luther's  violent  writings  against, 
243, 427  seq.;  effect  of  uprising,  252. 

Penance,  Roman  doctrine  of,  21  seq; 
Cyprian  on,  26,  28;  later  history  of, 
29  seq;  Luther's  early  teaching 
about,  47, 48. 

Persecution,  Luther  condemns,  119, 
186,  293;  afterwards  defends,  294 
seq. 

Pescara,  imperial  general,  258,  260; 
death  of,  283. 

Peter  of  Bruys,  reformer,  xxxix. 

Peter,  primacy  of,  95,  98, 103. 

Pfeffercorn,  controversy  with  Reuch- 
lin,  x. 

Pfeffinger,  counsellor  of  Elector,  81. 

Pfeifer,  peasant  leader,  240. 

Pflug,  Julius  von,  and  Augsburg  In- 
terim, 374. 

Philip,  landgrave  of  Hesse,  sends  Lu- 
ther safe  conduct,  147;  at  Worms, 
154, 156;  opposes  revolting  knights, 
218;  against  peasants,  240,  241; 
deceived  by  Pack,  288;  appeals  to 
France  and  Bohemia,  289;  forms 
league  of  Torgau,  302;  his  "con- 
version," 304;  calls  conference  at 
Marburg,  309;  intervenes  in  dis- 
pute, 311;  signs  Protest,  292;  signs 
Augsburg  Confession,  323;  joins 
league  of  Schmalkald,  338;  service 
against  the  Turks,  339;  marriage 
to  Christina  of  Saxony,  350;  his 
bigamy,  351-354;  second  compact 
with  Emperor,  365;  surrender  of, 


462 


INDEX 


371;    captivity,  272;    release  of, 
380. 

Pirkheimer,  Willibald,  the  German 
Maecenas,  xiv;  friend  of  Melanch- 
thon,  65. 

Pleissenberg,  castle  of,  91. 
Pole,  Reginald,  Cardinal,  355. 
Polygamy,    practised    at    Minister, 

348. 

Pope,  infallibility  of,  questioned, 
xxxvi;  Tetzel  on  power  of,  53;  Pri- 
erias  maintains  infallibility  of,  54; 
Cajetan  on,  73. 

Popes,  Sylvester  (314-335),  93. 
Damasus  (366-384),  95. 
Cornelius  (251-252),  96, 97, 98. 
Leo  the  Great  (440-461),  28. 
Gregory  the  Great  (590-604),  29. 
Gregory  VI  (1044-1046),  33. 
Urban  II  (1088-1099),  28. 
Eugene  III  (1145-1153),  29. 
Lucius  III  (1181-1185),  37. 
Innocent   III    (1198-1216),   29, 

111,  203, 266. 

HonoriusIII  (1216-1227),  121. 
Boniface  VIII  (1294-1303),  31. 
Clement  VI  (1342-1352),  55,  37, 

39,  72,  73,  74. 

John  XXIII  (1410-1415),  xxxix. 
Clement  VII,  Antipope  (1378- 

1394),  4. 

Innocent  VIII  (1484-1492),  58. 
Alexander  VI  (1492-1503),  128, 

xxxix. 
Julius  II  (1503-1513),  12,  37,  39, 

40,58. 

Julius  III  (1550-1555),  378. 
-      Paul  IV  (1555-1559),  383. 
Innocent  X  (1644-1655),  383. 
Pius  X  (1903-        ),  xxxvi. 
See  also  Adrian  VI,  Clement  VII, 

Leo  X,  Paul  III. 
Prag,  Jerome  of,  xxxix,  129, 204. 
Press,  influence  of,  vi,  52,  110,  111, 

113. 
Prices,  cause  of  rise  of,  xxxiii. 


Prierias,  Sylvester,  defends  Tetzelr 
51;  replied  to  Luther,  54,  57,  71, 
110,  111. 

Priesthood  of  believers,  Luther  on, 
194. 

Priests,  marriage  of,  118. 

Princes,  oligarchy  of,  xvii  seq.;  right 
and  duty  of  to  undertake  reform, 
117  seq.;  at  Worms,  151;  contest 
with  Emperor,  152;  assume  epis- 
copal powers,  267,  333;  greed  of, 
334, 337,  339;  final  triumph  of,  380. 

Principle,  conservative,  of  Reforma- 
tion, 119;  formal  and  material,  125. 

Printing,  origin  of,  vi;  see  Press. 

Protest,  at  second  Diet  of  Speyer, 
291;  text  of,  431  seq.;  at  Augsburg, 
335.  x 

Protestantism,  political  side  of,  441; 
effect  of  Peace  of  Augsburg  on,  384. 

Protestants,  origin  at  Speyer,  291  seq.; 
first  league  of,  301;  completed  at 
Torgau,  302;  cause  of  disunion,  315; 
decline  to  attend  general  council, 
358;  condemned  at  Augsburg,  335, 
336;  form  Schmalkald  league,  338; 
aid  against  Turks,  339. 

Purgatory,  souls  in  and  indulgences, 
xxxv,  51;  Leo  X  claims  power  over, 
75;  discussed  at  Leipzig,  106. 

Prussia,  Reformation  in,  266. 

Race  antagonisms  of  sixteenth  cen- 
tury, 131. 

Ranke,  on  Luther  at  Marburg,  311. 

Ravensberg,  free  city,  xxix. 

Raynaldus,  on  Peace  of  Augsburg, 
384. 

Real  Presence,  in  sacrament,  307; 
taught  in  Augsburg  Confession, 
324. 

Reformation,  why  it  began  in  Saxony, 
xxii,  economic  basis  of,  xxiii  seq., 
387;  Staupitz  or  Luther  its  origi- 
nator, 50,  51 ;  could  not  be  stopped, 
151;  affected  by  constitutional 


INDEX 


463 


struggle,  153;  Luther's  ideas  about, 
-  180,  186;  begins  in  Wittenberg, 
181;  relation  to  European  politics, 
196;  articles  of  prepared  at  Regens- 
burg,  211;  necessitated  violence, 
225;  favored  by  decree  at  Speyer, 
266;  in  Prussia,  266;  begins  with 
v  ritual,  268;  lessens  reverence,  269; 
place  of  sermon  in,  271;  ethical 
effect  of,  272;  in  Hesse,  273;  intro- 
duced into  Saxony,  276;  Melanch- 
thon's  "Instructions, "  277;  spreads 
through  Northern  Germany,  279; 
declared  illegal  at  second  Diet  of 
Speyer,  290;  accomplishes  only 
change  of  masters,  297;  threatened 
with  undoing  at  Augsburg,  337;  in 
ducal  Saxony,  363;  a  complex 
movement,  384;  religious  side  of, 
385;  political  aspect  of,  386;  tri- 
umph of  bourgeoisie,  389;  perver- 
sion of  Renaissance,  ib.;  not  con- 
sistently Scriptural,  390;  did  little 
for  religious  liberty,  391. 

Regensburg,  convention  of  Catholic 
princes  at,  211;  Diet  (1532),  340, 
342;  See  secularized,  363;  articles 
of,  365,  373;  second  conference  at, 
366. 

Reichstag;  see  Diet. 

Religious  liberty,  Luther's  contra- 
dictory writings  on,  292  seq.;  effect 
of  Reformation  on,  391. 

Renaissance,  Michelet  on,  vi;  in  Ger- 
many, vi  seq.;  perverted  by  Refor- 
mation, 389. 

Republic,  of  Rome,  273. 

Reservation,  ecclesiastical,  382,  384. 

Revolution,  Luther's  writings  look 
toward,  161,  194,  235;  opposed  by 
Luther,  180;  predicted,  246;  at- 
tempted by  knights,  215  seq.;  by 
peasants,  236  seq.;  at  Minister,  347 
seq.;  at  Liibeck,  349  seq. 

Reuchlin,  and  Humanism,  x  seq.;  de- 
fended by  Pirkheimer,  xiv;  con- 


troversy with  Hoogstraten,  63,  111 ; 
relation  to  Melanchthon,  64. 

Reutlingen,  free  city,  xxiv;  signs  Pro- 
test, 292;  captured  byDukeUlrich, 
343;  approves  Wittenberg  Con- 
cord, 361. 

Rhodes,  capture  of,  281. 

Rienzi,  274. 

Rodach,  conference  at,  303. 

Rome,  capture  of,  285. 

Rothmann,  Bernard,  at  Miinster, 
347. 

Rousseau,  his  "Social  Contract," 
387. 

Rovere,  Cardinal,  letter  to  Elector 
Frederick,  59;  reply  of  the  Elector, 
66. 

Rudolf  of  Habsburg,  xvii. 

Sachs,  Hans,  poet  of  the  people,  xvi. 

Sacraments,  efficacy  of,  35;  see 
Real  Presence,  Transubstantiation, 
Communion,  Baptism. 

Sadoleto,  Cardinal,  355. 

St.  Gall,  free  city,  xxiv;  signs  Protest, 
292;  joins  Torgau  league,  302; 
Luther's  pacific  letter  to,  362. 

St.  Lambert's,  Miinster,  348. 

San  Petronio,  Bologna,  317. 

Santa  Scala,  Luther's  ascent  of,  11. 

Satisfaction,  in  Roman  theology, 
22. 

Savonarola,  reformer,  v,  128,  129, 
131, 149. 

Saxony,  house  becomes  Catholic,  381. 

Schaff,  on  Luther's  Catechism,  278; 
on  Luther  at  Marburg,  311. 

Schaffhausen,  free  city,  xxix;  Luther's 
pacific  letter  to,  362. 

Scheurl,  friend  of  Luther,  89. 

Schism,  guilt  of,  xxxv. 

Schmalkald,  conference  at,  314;  arti- 
cles of,  359;  league  of,  338,  365; 
strength  of  league,  339;  Zwinglian 
towns  admitted  to,  364;  Arch- 
bishop of  Cologne  asks  admission 


464 


INDEX 


to,  364;  Charles  V  declares  war  on, 
369;  annihilated,  370. 

Schnepff,  at  Augsburg  conference, 
329. 

Scholasticism,  Protestant,  391. 

"Schonberg-Cotta  Family,"  140. 

Schurf,  friend  of  Luther,  155. 

Schwabach,  conference  at,  313;  arti- 
cles, adopted  by  John  Constant, 
320;  relation  to  Augsburg  Confes- 
sion, 324. 

Schwartzerd;  see  Melanchthon. 

Scriptures,  Luther  appeals  to,  57,  73; 
supremacy  of,  101,  158,  176,  194, 
208,  236,  386,  390;  authority  of 
asserted  in  Protest,  291;  Zwinglion, 
306. 

Secularization  of  Church  property, 
333,  337,  339,  363;  maintained  in 
Peace  of  Augsburg,  382. 

Sforza,  Duke  of  Milan,  257,  263. 

"  Ship  of  Fools,  "xxi. 

Sickingen,  Franz  von,  offers  asylum 
to  Luther,  116;  and  Diet  of  Worms, 
150;  character  of,  216;  heads  revolt 
of  knights,  217,  245;  defeat  and 
death  of,  218. 

Sigismund,  Emperor,  148,  342. 

Sleidan,  on  peasant's  war,  242. 

Sorbonne,  6. 

Southey,  on  battle  of  Blenheim,  392. 

Spalatin;  sketch  of,  19;  interview  with 
Miltitz,  82;  Luther's  letters  to,  90, 
132,  149,  188,  169,  219,  294;  Eras- 
mus to,  139;  assists  Luther,  172. 

Speyer,  free  city,  xxiv;  first  Diet  of 
(1525),  211  seq.;  decrees  of,  265;  ac- 
cepts Reformation,  280;  second 
Diet  and  Protest,  289  seq.,  431 
seq. 

Staupitz,  befriends  Luther,  9;  urges 
Luther  to  become  Doctor,  12; 
sketch  of,  18;  did  he  originate  the 
Reformation?  50,  51;  Luther's  let- 
ters to,  59,  60,  62;  goes  to  Salzburg, 
69;  supports  Luther  at  Augsburg, 


75;  estranged  from  Luther  and 
death,  255. 

Stralsund,  accepts  the  Reformation, 
279. 

Strassburg,  free  city,  xxiv;  accepts 
Reformation,  280;  signs  Protest, 
292;  joins  league  of  Torgau,  302; 
takes  part  in  Rodach  conference, 
303 ;  becomes  Zwinglian,  309 ;  unites 
in  Tetrapolitan  Confession,  328 ;  An- 
abaptists in,  346;  Charles  V  to,  369. 

Sturz,  friend  of  Luther,  172. 

Stuttgart,  344. 

Suleiman  II,  Sultan  of  Turkey,  196; 
his  successful  campaigns,  281;  in- 
vasion and  defeat  at  Vienna,  298. 

Sumptuary  laws,  xxvii,  xxx. 

Superintendents,  in  Lutheran  church- 
es, 275. 

Swabia,  peasant  outbreak  in,  236. 

Swabian  league,  against  Ulrich,  343. 

Table-Talk,  Luther's,  quoted,  6,  11. 

Taborites,  184. 

Tauler,  John,  16. 

Teachers,  pay  of,  ix. 

Teplensis,  codex,  171. 

Territorial  system,  381. 

TertulUan,  221. 

Tetrapolitan  Confession,  328. 

Tetzel,  John,  sells  indulgences,  44;  at- 
tempted vindications  of,  50;  theses 
on  indulgences,  53,  402  seq.,  78; 
summoned  by  Miltitz,  82;  con- 
demnation and  death  of,  86. 

Theses,  Luther's,  vii,  81;  posting  of, 
45;  their  significance,  46  seq.;  effect 
on  Germany,  52;  text  of,  397  seq.; 
Luther's  "Explanations"  of,  61. 

Thirty  Years'  War,  150, 380, 382, 383. 

Toltweil,  free  city,  xxiv. 

Torgau,  league  of,  302;  articles  of, 
320;  relation  to  Augsburg  Confes- 
sion, 325. 

Trade,  held  in  disdain,  xxvi;  Erasmus 
on,  ib. 


INDEX 


465 


TransubBtantiation,  Luther  rejects, 
119;  Aristotle's  relation  to,  30. 

Treasure,  of  merits,  33;  doctrine  ap- 
proved by  Clement  VI,  36;  denied 
by  John  of  Wesel,  38;  Cajetan  on, 
72;  Leo  X  asserts  reality  of,  75. 

Treaties,  Bologna,  317;  Madrid,  260; 
Crespy,  367;  Cambray,  287;  of 
Clement  VII  and  Francis  I,  258. 

Trebonius,  John,  Luther's  teacher, 
4. 

Trent,  council  of,  373;  adjourned  to 
Bologna,  ib.;  reconvened,  378. 

Trier,  Archbishop  of,  arbiter  in  Lu- 
ther's case,  86;  and  imperial  can- 
didates, 114,  115;  Sickingen's  at- 
tack on,  217;  referred  to,  137,  154, 
160,  161,  163,  288. 

Trier,  resists  Reformation,  280. 

Trosch,  John,  friend  of  Luther,  71. 

Truchsess,  General  of  Swabian  league, 
239. 

Turks,  invasion  of,  39,  40,  205,  209, 
260,  298,  335,  339,  420;  Charles  V 
makes  truce  with,  367;  new  inva- 
sion of,  380. 

Twelve  Articles  of  peasants,  237. 

Tyndale,  translator,  174. 

Ueberlingen,  free  city,  xxiv. 

Ulrich,  duke  of  Wiirtemberg,  exile  of, 

343,  restoration  of,  344. 
Universities,   controlled  by  Church, 
xxxvi;  give  way  to  press,  111. 

Basel,  192. 

Cologne,  139. 

Erfurt,  xi,  4, 38. 

Frankfort-on-Oder,  53, 402. 

Heidelberg,  x,  64, 92. 

Ingolstadt,  102. 

Leipzig,  102. 

Lou  vain,  139. 

Marburg,  310. 

Prag,  102. 

Tubingen,  x,  64, 92. 

Wittenberg,  10, 69, 177. 


Ulm,  constitution  of,  xxiii;  trade  of, 
xxiv;  signs  Protest,  292;  joins 
league  of  Torgau,  302;  unites  in 
Rodach  conference,  303;  becomes 
Zwinglian,  309;  approves  Witten- 
berg Concord,  361;  Charles  V  to, 
375;  opposes  Interim,  375. 

Usury  and  mediaeval  ethics,  xxvii. 

Valdesius  on  Lutheran   "tragedy," 

168. 

Venetus,  Gabriel,  Leo  X's letter  to,  58. 
Vio,  Thomas  de;  see  Cajetan. 
Vogler,    George,    composes   Protest, 

291. 
Vows,  monastic,  Luther  on,  6,  7,  8, 

169. 

Waldensians,  and  German  Bible,  171; 
persecution  of,  203. 

Waldo,  reformer,  xxxix. 

Waldshut,  236. 

War,  change  in  the  art  of,  xxx  seq,; 
216. 

Warham,  Archbishop,  Erasmus  to, 
229. 

Wartburg,  castle  of,  168  seq. 

Wehe,  at  Worms  conference,  160. 

Wehrgelt,  custom  of,  38. 

Weil,  free  city,  xxiv. 

Weimar,  Luther  at,  71, 149. 

Wiclif,  reformer,  v,  xxxix,  18,  38,  94, 
101,  227. 

William,  duke  of  Bavaria,  at  Augs- 
burg, 326;  jealousy  of  Habsburgs, 
326;  Aleander  on,  340. 

Will,  Luther  on,  229  seq. 

Wimpf en,  free  city,  xxiv. 

Wimpheling,  Jacob,  sketch  of,  ix;  on 
trade  of  Ulm,  xxiv;  on  wealth  of 
Germany,  xxvi;  on  capitalism, 
xxvii. 

Wimpina,  Conrad,  Catholic  theolo- 
gian, in  conference  at  Augsburg, 
329;  probable  author  of  Tetzel's 
theses,  402. 


466 


INDEX 


Windshcim,  free  city,  signs  Protest, 
292. 

Wissenberg,  free  city,  signs  Protest, 
292. 

Wittenberg,  town  of,  10;  Reformation 
begins  at,  366  seq. 

Wolfgang,  prince  of  Anhalt,  signs 
Protest,  292;  signs  Confession,  323; 
joins  Schmalkald  league,  338. 

Worms,  free  city,  xxiv;  destruc- 
tion of,  150;  accepts  Reformation, 
280. 

Worms,  Diet  of,  3;  summoned,  138; 
meets,  143;  addressed  by  Aleander, 
144;  Duke  George  complains  of 
papacy  at,  145;  decides  to  hear 
Luther,  ib,;  Landfriede  of,  336;  see 
Edict,  Diet. 

Wullenweber,  Jurgen,  350. 


Zurich,  free  city,  xxiv;  Zwingli's  work 
at,  304;  democracy  of,  305;  Lu- 
ther's pacific  letter  to,  362. 

Zwickau,  "prophets"  of,  183,  190, 
239;Miinzerat,  239. 

Zwilling,  Gabriel,  begins  Reformation 
in  Wittenberg,  181  seq. 

Zwingli,  Swiss  reformer,  175;  talent 
for  politics,  179;  friend  of  Erasmus, 
221;  compared  with  Luther  as  re- 
former, 305;  holds  to  supremacy  of 
Scripture,  306;  controversy  with 
Luther,  307  seq,;  doctrine  of  com- 
munion, 308;  in  the  colloquy  at 
Marburg,  310  seq. 

Zwinglians,  denied  toleration  by 
second  Diet  of  Speyer,  290;  union 
with  Lutherans,  361;  excluded  from 
Peace  of  Augsburg,  381. 


THE  following  pages  contain  advertisements  of  books 
by  the  same  author  or  on  kindred  subjects. 


BY  THE  SAME  AUTHOR 


Socialism  and  the  Ethics  of  Jesus 

Cloth,  I2mo,  $1.50  net;  by  mail  $1.63, 

s— 

"Henry  C.  Vedder's  SOCIALISM  AND  THE  ETHICS  OF  JESUS  begins 

with  a  brief  history  of  socialistic  principles  and  parties  in  modern  times,  together 
with  a  critical  examination  of  the  principles  of  present-day  socialism.  This  is 
followed  by  a  study  of  the  social  ethics  of  Jesus,  including  both  the  fundamental 
principles  and  their  chief  practical  applications  and  an  outline  of  the  history  of 
Christianity  sufficient  to  show  to  what  degree  the  church  has  failed  to  realize  the 
social  ideal  of  Jesus.  The  whole  leads  to  an  inquiry  concerning  the  fitting  attitude 
of  those  who  profess  the  religion  of  Jesus  to  social  questions  and  to  socialism. 
It  is  a  timely  discussion  of  a  popular  theme.  The  book  is  the  outgrowth  of  many 
years'  study  of  the  problems  involved." 

— New  YerlT  Evening  Post. 

"One  will  find  this  a  very  informing  book.  There  are  very  few  books  which  will 
be  more  welcome.  It  is  sympathetic  with  socialism,  but  it  handles  the  whole 
subject  in  the  light  and  the  spirit  of  the  teachingstjf  Jesus.  It  points  out  the  duty 
of  the  church  and  the  Christian  mjnk^tln  the  face  of  the  social  problems  of  our 
day,  and  looks  hopefully  into  the  future. 

"The  book  is  highly  commended  to  all  who  would  have  a  clear  exposition  of 
modern  socialism  in  the  light  of  the  teachings  of  Jesus." 

— The  Boston  Herald. 

"  It  is  an  able  and  strong  comparison  of  the  ethical  principles  of  the  Master  and 
those  of  modern  socialism.  Accepting  those  of  the  great  Teacher  as  the  standard,, 
the  tenets  proclaimed  by  the  socialists  of  to-day  are  subjected  to  this  test.  The 
author's  clear  and  incisive  setting  forth  of  this  comparison — or  rather  contrast — 
will  serve  to  clear  the  atmosphere  for  thinking  that  has  grown  hazy  on  this  subject." 

— Christian  World. 

"Alike  as  a  history,  an  interpretation,  and  a  criticism  of  modern  socialism,  Prof.. 
Vedder's  work  is  of  great  interest  and  value." 

— The  Pittsburgh  Gazette-Times. 


PUBLISHED  BY 

THE  MACMILLAN  COMPANY 

Publishers        64-66  Fifth  Avenue        New  York 


What  leading  reviewers  are  saying  about 

DR.  ERNST  RICHARD'S 

History  of  German  Civilization 

Cloth,  i2mo,  $2.00  net;  by  mail,  $2.14 
From  the  Brooklyn  Eagle  (N.  Y.) 

"No  more  interesting  or  careful  study  of  any  phase  of  European  history 
has  come  from  the  press  in  years  than  the  recent  volume  of  Ernst  Richard's 
History  of  German  Civilization,  Without  fear  of  overpraise  we  may  place  it 
in  the  same  rank  with  that  wonderful  History  of  European  Morals  of  Professor 
Lecky,  and  we  are  confident  that  when  the  present  work  becomes  known,  it 
will  have  as  great  a  vogue  among  scholars  as  Lecky's  had  for  years." 

From  the  Boston  Herald  (Mass.) 

"In  some  ways  his  book  is  a  model  on  which  all  writing  of  history  might 
be  patterned.  .  .  .  There  is  a  thoroughness  about  the  book  which  is  itself 
German.  The  sketch  of  Germanic  origins  shows  the  grip  of  an  expert  upon 
his  subject.  Dr.  Richard  writes  as  a  German  and  at  times  writes  enthusi- 
astically. But  he  is  no  chauvinist,  and  his  emphasis  on  the  value  of  German 
ideas  for  world  civilization  rests  on  solid  foundation.  In  placing  that 
emphasis  he  covers  the  whole  range  of  German  achievement  in  literature  and 
science,  in  law  and  in  art.  His  book  is  itself  a  noteworthy  contribution  to 
the  'German  ideals  of  truth,  justice,  and  beauty.' " 

From  the  Tribune  (N.  Y.) 

"Dr.  Richard's  book  is  literally  what  he  calls  it,  'a  survey'.  What  is 
more,  it  is  a  survey  which  admirably  well  weighs  the  relative  importance  of 
periods,  and  which  makes  a  telling  use  of  contrasts,  of  those  amazingly  pro- 
nounced alterations  of  development  and  retrogression  that  have  marked  the 
'  Kultur  Geschichte '  of  the  German  people.  The  author  is  strictly  impartial, 
notwithstanding  his  profound  interest  in  his  subject.  Germany  is  none  too 
sympathetically  dealt  with  by  foreign  observers,  students,  and  critics  of  the 
day.  This  work  furnishes  a  welcome  counterweight  to  their  not  always 
unprejudiced  and  well-considered  strictures." 

From  the  New  York  Times'  Review  of  Books 

"A  useful  and  interesting  book.  He  draws  a  persuading,  even  a  con- 
vincing portrait  of  a  people  strong  in  mind  and  will,  active,  dutiful,  in  many 
ways  noble,  in  some  very  attractive. " 

From  the  Westminster  Gazette  (London) 

"He  has  succeeded  in  producing  a  general  history  of  German  civilization 
which  is  wholly  admirable.  ...  It  is  written  in  a  clear  and  confident  style. 
The  English  is  as  pure  as  anything  which  comes  from  Oxford." 

Translated  from  the  Weserzeitung  (Bremen,  Germany) 

"Thus  the  book  which  holds  the  middle  between  scholarly  investigation 
and  popular  representation  proves  itself  inspiring  and  instructive  also  for 
us  Germans." 

PUBLISHED  BY 

THE  MACMILLAN  COMPANY 

Publishers        64-66  Fifth  Avenue       New  York 


BY  WILLIAM  ENGLISH  WALLING 


The  Larger  Aspects  of  Socialism 

Cloth,  $1.50  net;  postpaid,  $1.63 

"For  the  second  time  William  English  Walling  has  made  a  notable  contribution 
to  the  literature  of  Socialism." — Mary  Brown  Sumner  in  "The  Survey" 

"Your  two  books  together  and  separately  constituted  the  supreme  English  con- 
tribution to  Socialism." — Professor  George  D,  Herron. 

"This  book  is  exceptionally  suggestive  and  interesting.  ...  It  is  to  be  hoped 
that  Mr.  Walling  will  continue  to  give  us  such  careful  and  suggestive  analyses  of 
socialistic  thought." — Alexander  Fleisher  in  "  The  Annals  of  the  American  Academy" 

"The  author  has  earned  a  right  to  a  front-rank  place  among  the  American 
Socialist  'intellectuals.'  ...  A  clear-sighted  observer,  and  a  reporter  honest 
with  himself  and  the  public."— "The  Nation." 

"You  are  certainly  one  of  those  exasperating  men  who  must  be  counted  with. 
I  have  gone  over  your  first  book  with  admiration  and  extreme  disapprobation. 
There  is  no  book  with  which  I  have  any  acquaintance  which  is  so  truthful  in  telling 
what  a  considerable  body  of  our  countrymen  are  thinking  about." 

—Professor  Albert  Bushnell  Hart. 

Socialism  As  It  Is 

A  Survey  of  the  World-Wide  Revolutionary  Movement 

Cloth,  I2mo,  $2.00  net;  postpaid,  $2.12 
A  New  Departure  in  Socialist  Books 

"  Can  be  most  highly  recommended  as  a  sane  and  clear  exposition  and  is  not  a 
rehash  of  the  various  volumes  that  have  been  already  published  on  the  subject,  but 
is  a  contribution  from  a  distinct  and  new  point  of  view." — The  New  York  Times. 

"The  best  and  most  scholarly  presentation  of  the  subject  that  has  yet  fallen  into 
my  hands.  It  gave  me  an  insight  into  the  situation,  for  which  I  longed  but  to  which 
I  could  not  find  any  access." — Professor  Jacques  Loeb. 

"  You  certainly  give  a  wonderful  insight  into  Socialism  as  it  is  and  getting  to  be — 
and  it  is  an  insight  that  every  citizen  ought  to  have." — Professor  John  R.  Commons. 

"I  have  been  reading  your  book  with  great  interest.  The  great  contribution,  it 
seems  to  me,  is  the  clear  contrast  between  State  Socialism  and  revolutionary  social- 
ism."— Professor  Simon  N.  Patten. 


PUBLISHED   BY 

THE  MACMILLAN   COMPANY 

Publishers         64-66  Fifth  Avenue         New  York 


NEW  BOOKS  ON  RELIGION 


Can  We  Still  Be  Christians? 

BY  RUDOLF  EUCKEN 

Professor  of  Philosophy  in  the  University  of  Jena,  Nobel  Prizeman, 
1908.  Translated  by  Lucy  Judge  Gibson,  Classical  and  Oriental 
Triposes,  Cambridge 

Cloth,  i2mo,  $1.50  net 

As  might  be  expected  from  his  numerous  writings,  some  of  which 
are  now  well-known  in  this  country,  Dr.  Eucken's  answer  to  this 
question  is  emphatically  in  the  affirmative.  We  not  only  can,  but 
must.  The  interest  of  this  volume  lies,  however,  in  the  freshness 
with  which  he  sets  forth  his  own  personal  view — in  contrast  with 
those  current  in  the  various  churches  claiming  to  be  "orthodox" — as 
to  what  constitutes  the  veritable  essence  of  that  Christianity  which 
alone  can  appeal  to  the  modern  mind. 

The  Assurance  of  Immortality 

BY  HARRY  EMERSON  FOSDICK,  D.D. 

Cloth,  I2mo,  #7.00  net;  prepaid,  $1.10 

A  new  essay  upon  immortality  can  be  justified  only  by  a  fresh 
point  of  view,  and  this  book  has  one.  The  writer  is  not  interested  in 
the  bare  continuance  of  an  immaterial  "soul,"  but  in  the  preservation 
of  the  active  spiritual  value  of  the  race.  The  discussion  of  life  ever- 
lasting in  the  light  of  this  fundamental  human  interest  becomes  less 
speculative,  more  reasonable,  less  other  worldly,  more  practical, 
less  dogmatic,  more  tentative.  It  concerns  itself  less  with  the  crav- 
ings of  the  individual  and  more  with  the  demand  of  the  social  struggle. 
In  particular  it  makes  a  direct  appeal  to  the  man  who  wonders  what 
difference  it  makes  whether  or  not  immortality  be  true.  The  essay  is 
divided  into  three  parts.  In  the  first  the  writer  discusses  the  vital 
significance  of  personal  permanence  to  human  life  now;  in  the  second 
he  shows  the  inconclusive  nature  of  the  standard  considerations 
urged  against  personal  permanence;  in  the  third  he  presents  the  rea- 
sons for  a  modern  man's  confidence  that  the  grave  does  not  end  all. 


PUBLISHED  BY 

THE  MACMILLAN  COMPANY 

Publishers        64-66  Fifth  Avenue       New  York 


NEW  BOOKS  ON  RELIGION 


The  Christian  Reconstruction  of  Modern  Life 

BY  REVEREND  CHARLES  HENRY  DICKINSON,  D.D. 

Cloth,  isrno,  $1.50  net 

This  book  considers  the  social  passion  of  our  time  in  its  funda- 
mental insistent  problems:  the  values  of  our  social  aims,  the  nature 
of  social  forces,  the  place  of  our  regnant  social  impulse  in  the  evolu- 
tion of  humanity.  The  discussion  is  concrete,  practical  and  un- 
technical.  Civilization  and  Christianity  are  regarded  as  two  prin- 
ciples of  world  conquest,  the  aim  of  the  former,  the  Hellenic,  being  the 
appropriation  of  the  world  by  the  human  spirit;  the  ami  of  the  latter, 
the  Semitic,  the  opposite  of  other-worldliness,  being  humanity's 
transcendence  of  the  world.  The  customary  application  of  Chris- 
tianity to  social  interests  is  false  to  both  principles.  The  outcome  is  a 
social  revolution  in  which  cultural  forces  find  their  implicit  values 
realized  and  the  social  passion  learns  its  own  spiritual  nature. 

The  Bible  for  Home  and  School 

Edited  by  Dean  SHAILER  MATHEWS  of  the  University  of  Chicago. 
AMOS,  HOSEA  and  MICAH 

Edited  with  an  introduction,  notes  and  glossary  by  Professor  M.  P. 
SMITH.     Uniform  with  the  other  books  of  the  series. 

Cloth,  i2mo,  #1.00  net 

This  commentary  is  one  of  the  most  important  yet  published  in  the 
popular  series  to  which  it  belongs.  It  is  distinguished  by  a  number 
of  distinctive  features.  In  the  first  place  the  text  of  Hosea  is  printed 
as  poetry.  There  is  further  evidenced  a  clear  recognition  of  the  fact 
that  the  book  of  Hosea  is  a  growth;  a  careful  and  full  analysis  shows 
the  progress  of  its  thought.  Again  Hosea's  marital  experiences  are 
given  a  fresh  interpretation.  And  finally  an  endeavor  is  made  to 
show  the  vital  relation  between  the  messages  of  these  prophets  and 
the  needs  of  the  times  in  which  they  lived.  The  notes  for  the  volume 
are  brief  but  adequate.  They  indicate  the  more  important  differences 
in  the  various  great  translations  and  embody  the  results  of  the  latest 
and  best  scholarship,  with  a  total  absence  of  technicalities  of  language. 


PUBLISHED  BY 

THE  MACMILLAN  COMPANY 

Publishers         64-66  Fifth  Avenue        New  York 


IMPORTANT  BOOKS  ON  RELIGION 


Rauschenbusch 

Christianizing  the  Social  Order 

BY  DR.  WALTER  RAUSCHENBUSCH 

(Rochester  Theological  Seminary),  Author  of  "Christianity  and  the 

Social  Crisis." 

A  study  of  present-day  problems  written  with  even  greater  insight 
and  appeal  than  the  powerful  message  of  "Christianity  and  the  Social 
Crisis."  $1-50  net 

Leuba 

A  Psychological  Study  of  Religion 

Its  Origin,  Function  and  Future 

BY  JAMES  H.  LEUBA,  Pn.D.  (Bryn  Mawr) 


"A  work  of  originality  and  great  import,  presenting  the  religion 
of  humanity  through  sympathetic  appreciation  and  understanding  of 
ancient  ideals."  $2.00  net 


Gilbert 


Jesus 


BY  GEORGE  HOLLEY  GILBERT,  PH.D.,  D.D. 
(Chicago  Theological  Seminary.) 

"One  of  the  ablest  and  manliest  discussions  of  the  historical  Jesus 
and  the  legendary  Jesus.   A  sane  and  lovable  appreciation."  #1.50  net 

N"riag      Social  Religion 

BY  SCOTT  NEARING,  Pn.D.  (University  of  Pennsylvania) 
Author  of  "Social  Adjustment,"  "Women  and  Social  Progress,"  etc. 

The  most  deplorable  elements  in  the  modern  social  and  industrial 
world  analyzed  in  the  light  of  a  practical  Christianity.  $1.00  net 


PUBLISHED  BY 

THE  MACMILLAN  COMPANY 

Publishers        64-66  Fifth  Avenue       New  York 


\ 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT. 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below,  or 

on  the  date  to  which  renewed. 
Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall. 

R£C'D  LL/ 

MAR     2b4-7PIJA      h '67  -3  PM 


— — — 


NOV191985S5 


REC'D 


n»t 


C 


LD  2lA-40m-ll,'63 
(E1602slO)476B 


General  Library 

University  of  California 

Berkeley 


r 


YC  58030 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY. 


- 


